|
|
|
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
But what we can safely conclude is that Larson did not adequately prove to
the court that he was sufficiently harmed by Ken's unethical actions to
warrant any damages. Larson later appealled, and his appeal was turned
down.
What we can safely conclude is that the court found Larson's argument
utterly ridiculous.
So why can't we also conclude that the 10th Circuit found Ken Smith's
argument utterly ridiculous as well? See:
<http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Given the way you worship Bu#@($o, I can only say that we ought to consider
the souse.
Does this mean that Ken is soused, or that he's been hitting the sauce?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote:
Let's revisit why you're not licensed to practice law in this state -
Fine. First, show me that you are competent to discuss constitutional law.
Start by explaining the due process vagueness doctrine, and what a chilling
effect on First Amendment rights is and why it is impermissible to have
laws indirectly infringing upon First Amendment freedoms.
You mean, like McCain-Feingold?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:54:35 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Does this mean that Ken is soused, or that he's been hitting the sauce?
Ya, prolly...
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
But what we can safely conclude is that Larson did not adequately prove to
the court that he was sufficiently harmed by Ken's unethical actions to
warrant any damages. Larson later appealled, and his appeal was turned
down.
What we can safely conclude is that the court found Larson's argument
utterly ridiculous.
So why can't we also conclude that the 10th Circuit found Ken Smith's
argument utterly ridiculous as well? See:
<http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>
Let's face it, Ted -- nothing could be nearly as ridiculous as your
claim that a four-year-old girl took a running leap and jumped off a
@$#*in' cliff. Given the sheer luncacy of your alternate theory, the
authorities came to the *reasonable* conclusion, based upon where she
apparently landed, that your brother-in-law *threw* his illegitimate
daughter off a cliff to evade having to pay child support.
Suffice it to say that, if you *do* believe in your brother-in-law's
innocence on those facts and on your crackpot theory, that Jesus rose
from the dead on the evidence we have, and that Saddam was a clear and
present danger to America, you are frankly not qualified to determine
what is or is not "utterly ridiculous."
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Let's revisit why you're not licensed to practice law in this state -
You mean, like McCain-Feingold?
So, why is that bad law, whilst Colo. R. Civ. P. 201 is not?
Again, show me that you actually know the law, rather than proceeding
from the depths of your private vendetta against me....
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Let's revisit why you're not licensed to practice law in this state -
You mean, like McCain-Feingold?
My solution to that problem would be *requiring* radio and television
stations to run a substantial number of campaign ads as a public service
-- after all, they are licensed to broadcast in the public interest, and
the public has an interest in ensuring that their politicians can't only
be accessed via substantial bribes.
The going bribe rate for George W. Bush Rubber Chicken Circuit is
$1k, and that should not be.
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
But what we can safely conclude is that Larson did not adequately prove to
the court that he was sufficiently harmed by Ken's unethical actions to
warrant any damages. Larson later appealled, and his appeal was turned
down.
So why can't we also conclude that the 10th Circuit found Ken Smith's
argument utterly ridiculous as well? See:
<http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>
Well, if you didn't have a personal vendetta against me, you might be
willing to admit the court rendered a ludicrous decision. But you and I
both know how much you hate me....
Again, does it make any sense to declare in a published decision that
any affected party can raise a facial challenge to a statute, and then,
in an unpublished decision (no precedential value) that Person A can't?
A yes or no answer will do, Ted.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:16:43 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Well, if you didn't have a personal vendetta against me, you might be
willing to admit the court rendered a ludicrous decision. But you and I
both know how much you hate me....
Hey kenny boy, no big deal here...everyone hates you, got it?
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:<401B8E03.1010001@it.com>...
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
What we can safely conclude is that the court found Larson's argument
utterly ridiculous.
Let's face it, Ted -- nothing could be nearly as ridiculous as your
claim that a four-year-old girl took a running leap and jumped off a
@$#*in' cliff. Given the sheer luncacy of your alternate theory, the
authorities came to the *reasonable* conclusion, based upon where she
apparently landed, that your brother-in-law *threw* his illegitimate
daughter off a cliff to evade having to pay child support.
Suffice it to say that, if you *do* believe in your brother-in-law's
innocence on those facts and on your crackpot theory, that Jesus rose
from the dead on the evidence we have, and that Saddam was a clear and
present danger to America, you are frankly not qualified to determine
what is or is not "utterly ridiculous."
Admittedly, his theory is crackpot. Further more, given the evidence,
I would likely have voted to convict on the preponderance of evidence.
That said, I would not vote for the death penalty in this case. The
"evidence" is still circumstancial and works by logic, rather than
eye-witnesses.
My problem with the death penalty is that it is not applied equally.
Should Ted Bundy have been executed? Of course. Hitler? Yes. But, the
guy that ran down three kids in the street while drunk? Much less
clear cut, and probably not a useful application. There has to be a
standard, and I have yet to see one. Worse, there has to be clear-cut
proof of guilt, and in many cases this is "i think i saw him kinda in
the area" stuff.
Matt
|
| |
| |
Matt Telles wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Let's face it, Ted -- nothing could be nearly as ridiculous as your claim
that a four-year-old girl took a running leap and jumped off a @$#*in'
cliff. Given the sheer luncacy of your alternate theory, the authorities
came to the *reasonable* conclusion, based upon where she apparently
landed, that your brother-in-law *threw* his illegitimate daughter off a
cliff to evade having to pay child support.
Suffice it to say that, if you *do* believe in your brother-in-law's
innocence on those facts and on your crackpot theory, that Jesus rose from
the dead on the evidence we have, and that Saddam was a clear and present
danger to America, you are frankly not qualified to determine what is or
is not "utterly ridiculous."
Admittedly, his theory is crackpot.
Oh? What do you think you know about this? Do you seriously think that he
picked up his daughter and cast her off a cliff in an area that is wide open
and visible not only from the street, but from the water as well? See:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/RPV.jpg>
Further more, given the evidence,
What "evidence"? (Hint: there ain't any. All the prosecutor has is a "hired
gun" who was paid to say what the prosecutor needed him to say.)
I would likely have voted to convict on the preponderance of evidence.
BZZZZZZZZTTTTT! This is a CRIMINAL trial, and "guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt" is the standard that prevails here. "Preponderance of [the] evidence"
is for CIVIL trials (i.e., lawsuits).
That said, I would not vote for the death penalty in this case. The
"evidence" is still circumstancial and works by logic, rather than eye-
witnesses.
Rather, more by illogic. And you haven't even seen the evidence of the
defence. But there is much more to this case than meets the eye. And let me
tell you, it is stranger than fiction. When it all comes out, you will be
astounded. We couldn't make this stuff up.
As for Ken Smith, let him prattle on. The Colorado Bar Examiners' Board had
serious questions about his psychological fitness to practise law. And once
this case is over, I will lecture Ken about the perils of allowing those who
are psychologically unbalanced -- as Ken potentially might be -- to practise
law. (Not that it's gonna do much good, mind you.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
heodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Matt Telles wrote:
Let's face it, Ted -- nothing could be nearly as ridiculous as your claim
that a four-year-old girl took a running leap and jumped off a @$#*in'
cliff. Given the sheer lunacy of your alternate theory, the authorities
came to the *reasonable* conclusion, based upon where she apparently
landed, that your brother-in-law *threw* his illegitimate daughter off a
cliff to evade having to pay child support.
Suffice it to say that, if you *do* believe in your brother-in-law's
innocence on those facts and on your crackpot theory, that Jesus rose from
the dead on the evidence we have, and that Saddam was a clear and present
danger to America, you are frankly not qualified to determine what is or
is not "utterly ridiculous."
Oh? What do you think you know about this?
What you've told us: that she landed where she could not have had she
merely slipped, the prosecution has an expert witness to testify to that
effect, and the "crackpot theory" is your explanation for what happened.
Your bizarre claim that the prosecution is committing a grave
injustice in charging your brother-in-law with a crime under these facts
(the true facts may be different, but we are forced to rely on Ted's
assertions at this point) ranks right up there with your infamous "I
didn't know that my mates intended to use the tyre-iron as a weapon when
they said 'they needed it to get some beer'" claim. Downright daft.
Staggering. True Monty Python-class absurdity.
And everyone else sees it, Ted.
Do you seriously think that he
picked up his daughter and cast her off a cliff in an area that is wide open
and visible not only from the street, but from the water as well? See:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/RPV.jpg>
Someone has to be looking -- and I didn't see a soul in that picture.
And more to the point, the vast majority of that trail appears safe --
we would not only have to believe that the girl took a flying leap, but
that she did so at one of the relatively few spots where her life would
be in grave peril if she had. Not a good fact for Cam.
The crime scene is fairly remote, by Los Angeles standards. Exactly
the kind of place you would take someone if you intended to murder her,
and wanted to make it look like an "accident." IIRC, the incident (we
needn't call it murder yet) occurred in November -- when even Angelinos
tend to stay home. Further, she was taken to where she could be put in
grave peril, as opposed to the zoo, the beach, or a park. Having seen
your picture, Occam's Razor slices even more clearly in favor of Cam's
guilt.
Showing that picture does NOT help your case. A smart attorney would
have taken a picture on a summer weekend, when there are actually folks
there taking in the view. (Please tell me Cam's counsel didn't approve
your website, Ted [Ken shakes head rather than laughs, as it isn't very
funny, in light of what happened to the poor girl :(]....)
I say that without prejudging the evidence, except to say that there
is probable cause to conclude that Cam is guilty. And at this stage of
the proceedings, that *is* all that matters.
Further more, given the evidence,
What "evidence"? (Hint: there ain't any.
Where the victim landed. The condition of her body. More than
enough to convict, assuming arguendo that it supports the prosecution's
theory.
All the prosecutor has is a "hired
gun" who was paid to say what the prosecutor needed him to say.)
And this is a *bad* thing, Teddi? LOL! You didn't seem to have much
of a problem with it when the 'hired gun' was pointed at me, and he had
a pecuniary reason to testify in a certain way (Board-friendly testimony
equals continuing lucrative referrals). Now that one of your homeys is
in the crosshairs (and there's no evidence to cause a reasonable person
to question the expert's integrity) it's "outrageous" -- but *not* when
it's me?
Hypocrite!
Unless you have CREDIBLE evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, we are
forced to conclude that the hired gun in this case was almost certainly
brought in because they needed to do their due diligence before putting
a man on trial for murder. (Frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way.)
If their expert told them that they had no case, there is no good
reason to believe that they would have brought it. (I mean, it's not
like the defendant is Kobe Bryant or O.J.) The burden of proof on your
charge of misconduct is yours, Ted.
The system is working the way it's supposed to -- which is just what
you'd expect where the cameras are on and the media is scrutinizing it.
Whether Cam is innocent or guilty, he *looks* guilty enough on the
face of it that putting him on trial is by no means unreasonable.
I would likely have voted to convict on the preponderance of evidence.
BZZZZZZZZTTTTT! This is a CRIMINAL trial, and "guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt" is the standard that prevails here. "Preponderance of [the] evidence"
is for CIVIL trials (i.e., lawsuits).
So, the guy isn't an expert! I think it IS enough to meet reasonable
doubt, which is why this situation is so grave. The expert's testimony
is undoubtedly enough for a conviction, particularly if all you have is
your bizarre "the girl got a running start and took a flying leap -- at
one of the few places where she would have killed herself, if she had"
theory to offer as an alternative. (If I were defending, I'd be pushing
anatomically-correct and properly-weighted dummies down that hill to see
if I couldn't duplicate the event from a slip-and-fall. It might cost a
few bucks, but as I see it, it's Cam's best -- and quite possibly, only!
-- chance to escape the chair.)
Again, the prosecutor is only doing his job, and quite
professionally. (Now, if only the Colorado Board of Law Examiners had
displayed the same level of competence and professionalism....)
That said, I would not vote for the death penalty in this case. The
"evidence" is still circumstancial and works by logic, rather than eye-
witnesses.
Rather, more by illogic. And you haven't even seen the evidence of the
defence.
It *all* depends on where she landed. If she could not have landed
there had she merely slipped, the case is pretty much over. Nobody is
going to believe your "flying leap" theory. Nobody. Johnnie Cochrane
wouldn't even play that cold-ass loser.
But there is much more to this case than meets the eye.
Nonsense. Either it was a simple and tragic slip-and-fall (in which
case, reckless child endangerment charges might be appropriate), or it
was a truly heinous murder. And if where she landed
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:42:01 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
[Like his pal Spammy, Ted HAS to play the ad hominem card, because my
cold, dispassionate analysis
Because your convoluted, lengthy, at times almost lucid but nearly
always paranoiac ranting even scared the state bar to death.
They know a kook when they see one and so does the rest of the world.
The only functional difference between you and libs is that he sleeps
in a stairwell.
And, as a matter of
law in Colorado, free-floating allegations and/or personal opinion
simply do not cut it.
Says the hypocrite who'd excoriate Bill Bennett on the strength of
stolen casino documents and partisan speculation....
Ted, I find a delicious cosmic irony in the fact that the shoe is on
the other foot, and you're squealing like a stuck pig.
You are a very sick person kenny boy.
I'd take the trouble of contacting her myself and letting her know
that the Kaldis family is getting roughly what they deserve.
Sick to the core.
Your family's suffering -- especially, in light of the malice you
have directed at me on an obsessive, unrelenting basis -- is almost
enough to make one think there is a just God out there....
Every bit as mentally unbalanced as the bar determined.
And you put it on display with not the slightest shame for all to see.
Yes, you need help, big time.
|
| |
| |
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:42:01 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Because your convoluted, lengthy, at times almost lucid but nearly
always paranoiac ranting even scared the state bar to death.
Uh, I'm not the one claiming there's a terrorist around every corner,
and that we have to suspend the Bill of Rights to combat them. And I'm
not the paranoid whack who has to hide behind a pseudonym for the quite
unwarranted fear that someone would actually *want* his identity.
They know a kook when they see one and so does the rest of the world.
I'm sure you'll want to come out on the record saying that you
believe that a four-year-old girl got a running start and then a flying
leap off a cliff -- only complete nutters like you and Kaldis would
swallow that.
The only functional difference between you and libs is that he sleeps
in a stairwell.
Whereas you are confined to a half-way house....
And, as a matter of
law in Colorado, free-floating allegations and/or personal opinion
simply do not cut it.
Says the hypocrite who'd excoriate Bill Bennett on the strength of
stolen casino documents and partisan speculation....
No, I excoriated "Bellagio Bill" Bennett on the strength of *his own*
public admissions. That nefarious activity facilitated his response is
not my concern.
Simply put, he admitted his level of gambling and poison of choice.
At that point, simple mathematics takes care of the rest.
Ted, I find a delicious cosmic irony in the fact that the shoe is on
the other foot, and you're squealing like a stuck pig.
You are a very sick person kenny boy.
Why is that, you sick, paranoid @$#*? Because I find it apropos that
your pal Kaldis, who has delighted in denigrating me because he cannot
argue matters with me successfully on the merit, should have to endure
the taste of his own medicine?
Sick to the core.
Especially, when the statement is fraudulently removed from its
proper context (I said that if I were as malicious as Ted, that is what
I would do.)
Your family's suffering -- especially, in light of the malice you
have directed at me on an obsessive, unrelenting basis -- is almost
enough to make one think there is a just God out there....
Every bit as mentally unbalanced as the bar determined.
How is it evidence of "mental imbalance" to observe that Kaldis and
his family are reaping the bitter harvest he has sown?
And you put it on display with not the slightest shame for all to see.
You have to hide your considerable personal inadequacies behing the
comfortable bunker of a pseudonym.
Yes, you need help, big time.
Physician, heal thyself.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:08:34 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote:
Uh, I'm not the one claiming there's a terrorist around every corner,
and that we have to suspend the Bill of Rights to combat them. And I'm
not the paranoid whack who has to hide behind a pseudonym for the quite
unwarranted fear that someone would actually *want* his identity.
So you weren't judged to be a danger to your chosen profession?
From: Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Ken Smith's Problems Are of His Own Making: A Review
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel, aus.politics
Date: 2003-01-08 18:14:12 PST
Ken Smith is apparently a very angry man. And much of his anger seems
to be
centered around his failure to gain admittance to the Colorado Bar
Association (i.e., to receive a licence to practise law in the state
of
Colorado). But an examination of the circumstances surrounding this
event
indicates that Ken himself is largely responsible for this outcome.
Ken seems to have a bee in his bonnett and a bug up his @rse regarding
one
Bob Larson, a purported "man of the cloth", a supposed minister of the
Gospel, whose primary talent seems to be his adeptness at fleecing the
flock
(or at least the more gullible members of it). Ken doesn't say what
exactly
his beef is with Larson, but one can't help wonder if Ken might have
been
taken by Larson at some point in the past.
Ken has long maintained a web site ridiculing, disparaging, and
"exposing"
Larson. At some point, while Ken was still in law school, Ken lodged
legal
action against Larson. I'm not certain of the disposition of Ken's
case[s]
against Larson, but ultimately Larson sued Ken alleging that Ken had
misused
the legal discovery process to obtain private information about Larson
that
Ken would have otherwise been unable to obtain, and that Ken then
published
this information on his anti-Larson webpage.
Now there are many who consider Larson to be a somewhat odious
character, and
this opinion probably has a good bit of merit. In his suit against
Ken, for
whatever reason, Larson did not prevail. (And Ken never seems to go
into any
great detail about this, which probably tells us something.) But what
we can
safely conclude is that Larson did not adequately prove to the court
that he
was sufficiently harmed by Ken's unethical actions to warrant any
damages.
Larson later appealled, and his appeal was turned down.
Subsequently, Ken graduated law school and then passed the Colorado
Bar exam.
But Ken was denied a licence to practise law by the Examiners' Board
of the
Bar Association, due to questions about his judicial ethics associated
with
his legal encounters with Bob Larson. In fact, it appears that Ken
has even
ADMITTED to the Examiners' Board that he has no misgivings about
misusing the
subpoena process to gather information against Larson that he
published, and
that he would even be inclined to do so again in the future.
The function of the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar Association
is to
assess the suitability of candidates to the Bar to practise law. The
Board
assesses specifically whether a candidate is fit ethically, morally,
and
also mentally, to practise law in the State of Colorado. As part of
its
duties, the Board requested that Ken submit to a psychiatric
examination by
a doctor of the Board's choosing. And Ken refused.
Ken's response to the Board's actions has been to sue the Colorado
Supreme
Court, which has oversight of the Examiners' Board. Ken has also
included in
his suit the Board itself, and the members of the Board -- and of the
Supreme
Court itself! -- individually. Ken's initial suit was, unsurprsingly,
summarily dismissed, but Ken has since amended his suit and has
refiled. And
Ken's suit is PRO SE! This means that Ken is representing himself!
There's
an old adage in the legal profession: a man who represents himself has
a fool
for a client.
But Ken is apparently blind to the true nature of his problem. Ken
takes no
notice whatsoever of his moral and ethical shortcomings. In fact, Ken
seems
to have no perception of ethics. In his mind, the entire question
revolves
simply around the legality. If there is no law against a particular
action,
then why should there be any problem with it? So Ken prattles on
endlessly
about how his rights were somehow violated. But I cannot see where
anyone
has an inalienable right to practise law. I've met Ken, and have
found him
to be a likeable and affable chap. And I wish him well. But it pains
me to
have to say that it appears to me that, in this case, the Examiners'
Board of
the Colorado Bar Association did its job properly.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments concerning the
jurisdictional issue and we conclude that they are without merit. The
judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
|
| |
| |
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:08:34 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
So you weren't judged to be a danger to your chosen profession?
In a word, no. I invoked my rights under the Constitution which, as
a rule, doesn't sit too well with Democrat thugs.
From: Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@worldnet.att.net)
What Ted "the little girl obviously took a flying leap off a cliff"
Kaldis says is almost always materially in error.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Uncle Samuel wrote:
So you weren't judged to be a danger to your chosen profession?
In a word, no.
In other words, he was PERCEIVED to be a danger to his chosen profession.
But he refused to submit to the psychological examination they asked him to
take, presumably because he was afraid of what the doctors might find.
I invoked my rights under the Constitution which, as a rule, doesn't sit
too well with Democrat thugs.
Ken thinks it was his Constitutional right. But Denver Federal District
Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals disagree.
From: Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@worldnet.att.net)
What Ted "the little girl obviously took a flying leap off a cliff" Kaldis
says is almost always materially in error.
But I never said that. Liar. I only said it was an alternate explanation.
BTW, ready to eat that crow yet?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
So you weren't judged to be a danger to your chosen profession?
In other words, he was PERCEIVED to be a danger to his chosen profession.
More like, Ted needs me to be perceived as such, so he'll proclaim it
without evidence -- and in direct contradiction to his own position (in
re: the veracity of "hired guns"). But that is because he simply can't
handle the likelihood that his sister is about to lose her husband to a
burly guy named Bruce.... :)
But he refused to submit to the psychological examination they asked him to
take, presumably because he was afraid of what the doctors might find.
Rather, because the Constitution is supposed to have meaning, and it
was an unwarranted invasion of my privacy. You have failed to produce
any legal grounds for the validity of such a search, and it is unlikely
that you ever will.
Ken thinks it was his Constitutional right. But Denver Federal District
Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals disagree.
Both courts ruled that they did not have jurisdiction over the matter
-- anything else they might have said is of no consequence.
From: Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@worldnet.att.net)
What Ted "the little girl obviously took a flying leap off a cliff" Kaldis
says is almost always materially in error.
But I never said that. Liar. I only said it was an alternate explanation.
You stated, "Isn't it more likely that she, precocious child that she
was, simply ran off the cliff, not seeing the edge until it was too
late?" I answered: "In a word, no."
And your third alternative is? Aliens, shooting her with a ray gun?
I have told you over and over again that where she landed was evidence,
and if it can't be reasonably explained by a scenario that suggests his
innocence, Cam will fry. Yes, even in California, where it's damn-near
impossible to get Murder One.
If you have something you're not telling us, I am not responsible for
your intentional deception. But from what you've told us, it is beyond
question that they have probable cause to hold him.
BTW, ready to eat that crow yet?
Why? Cam is in prison, and there is good reason for him to be there.
I have no opinion on whether he is guilty or innocent, not having seen
the actual evidence, but based on what you told us, they certainly have
probable cause to hold him behind bars.
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
"What "evidence"? (Hint: there ain't any. All the prosecutor has is a "hired
gun" who was paid to say what the prosecutor needed him to say.)"
Ahhhhhhh, yes. Nothing more nefarious than a hired gun loitering on the grassy
knoll of the fair and balanced court, is there Ted ??
While I am personally sorry to see this set of circumstances visit upon your
family, i really wish you would pick one side of an argument's fence and stay
with it.
"Hired guns" and prosecutor whores either exist or they dont. They cant
absolutely not exist against the ever unpopular Ken Smith and then suddenly
appear en masse against mild and meek Cameron Brown... particularly when i seem
to remember that there were only four doctors in the *entire* state of Colorado
that had the ability to determine "sanity" for legal practice. Even the most
obnoxious law students should retain 1AM rights, dontcha know.
"Rather, more by illogic. And you haven't even seen the evidence of the
defence. But there is much more to this case than meets the eye. And let me
tell you, it is stranger than fiction. When it all comes out, you will be
astounded. We couldn't make this stuff up."
I was astounded that Carolina made it close, so dont delay in bringing on your
best stuff. Heck, if its as good as you say and a made for TV movie comes from
it, we will all be able to say "I knew Ted Kaldis when...."
It does have a certain ring to it... :-)
---------
have a GREAT day !!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040408080205050908070502
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
But I never said that. Liar.
If she landed in a spot inconsistent with a simple slip-and-fall, Cam
either threw her off that cliff, or she took a running leap and jumped.
As the theory that she took a running leap is not only unbelievable
but absurdly so, the only reasonable conclusion is that Cam *threw* her
off that cliff to evade child support. Motive, method, opportunity.
Lying in wait. Murder One.
If she landed in a spot not inconsistent with a simple slip-and-fall,
Cam could have pushed her off the cliff and yet, evade just punishment.
All that can be said by an acquittal is that it couldn't be proven
that he murdered his daughter beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember O.J.?
I only said it was an alternate explanation.
There is no third option, Ted. You asked if the theory you advanced
was "more likely," and I reasonably responded by laughing. Given that
there is no third option -- save for her being zapped by some alien ray
gun -- you're stuck with your ludicrous theory....
BTW, ready to eat that crow yet?
And for what am I supposed to be eating crow? I don't see anything
in the message below that can justify it, as I have been scrupulously
fair -- a concept foreign to you. Cam is in prison because he is
accused of murder. And, based on what you have told us here, L.A.
authorities have been doing everything strictly by the book. Good on 'em!
You have admitted yourself that he isn't very likely to prevail in
the preliminary hearing -- attributing it to "politics" (read,
corruption). Well, if politics can keep Cam in prison when he doesn't
deserve it, why can't politics unjustly deprive me of a law license?
As I said, I am not privy to the evidence, and don't have an opinion
on his innocence or guilt. However, the system is skewed to let guilty
men go free, and it's not unthinkable that Cam pushed her off the cliff
but nonetheless, will eventually evade just punishment. Why couldn't I
say that even though the authorities couldn't prove it conclusively, he
probably pushed her off that cliff? It wouldn't be libel.
It is, after all, an eminently reasonable conclusion under the facts.
Not having the noose of child support around one's neck is certainly a
motivation for murder, and anyone who would get a favorable "character
reference" from you could have no personal character to begin with....
It seems, Teddi, that there is no situation under which I would ever
have to "eat crow," under the facts as given.
--------------040408080205050908070502
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="message.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="message.eml"
From - Mon Feb 02 02:43:12 2004
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ba2a9a51!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <401CE5EB.5010209@it.com>
From: Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
Reply-To: Ranger57@concentric.net
Organization: ?????
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: boulder.general,co.politics,co.general,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Impending Execution of Cameron John Brown?
References: <rr5h10h435g6meohhflr6cljk9fq02edup@4ax.com> <40190F15.6010703@it.com> <chhj10l6qdtnd970u56qobgfb41gkjggi8@4ax.com> <4019DCF2.60800@it.com> <oivj1012l7523nmtel8639rejrdd7mb0l7@4ax.com> <401A4E92.7030906@it.com> <401B2648.FBB54C6D@worldnet.att.net> <401B8E03.1010001@it.com> <a8f39f3f.0401311529.c1ac9e9@posting.google.com> <401C7254.EC2A4118@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:42:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.235.113.127
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1075635721 67.235.113.127 (Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:42:01 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:42:01 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net boulder.general:121175 co.politics:88820 co.general:215790 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178378 misc.legal:407010
X-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:42:01 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Matt Telles wrote:
Let's face it, Ted -- nothing could be nearly as ridiculous as your claim
that a four-year-old girl took a running leap and jumped off a @$#*in'
cliff. Given the sheer lunacy of your alternate theory, the authorities
came to the *reasonable* conclusion, based upon where she apparently
landed, that your brother-in-law *threw* his illegitimate daughter off a
cliff to evade having to pay child support.
Suffice it to say that, if you *do* believe in your brother-in-law's
innocence on those facts and on your crackpot theory, that Jesus rose from
the dead on the evidence we have, and that Saddam was a clear and present
danger to America, you are frankly not qualified to determine what is or
is not "utterly ridiculous."
Oh? What do you think you know about this?
What you've told us: that she landed where she could not have had she
merely slipped, the prosecution has an expert witness to testify to that
effect, and the "crackpot theory" is your explanation for what happened.
Your bizarre claim that the prosecution is committing a grave
injustice in charging your brother-in-law with a crime under these facts
(the true facts may be different, but we are forced to rely on Ted's
assertions at this point) ranks right up there with your infamous "I
didn't know that my mates intended to use the tyre-iron as a weapon when
they said 'they needed it to get some beer'" claim. Downright daft.
Staggering. True Monty Python-class absurdity.
And everyone else sees it, Ted.
Do you seriously think that he
picked up his daughter and cast her off a cliff in an area that is wide open
and visible not only from the street, but from the water as well? See:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/RPV.jpg>
Someone has to be looking -- and I didn't see a soul in that picture.
And more to the point, the vast majority of that trail appears safe --
we would not only have to believe that the girl took a flying leap, but
that she did so at one of the relatively
|
| |
| |
SolarChase wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
Ahhhhhhh, yes. Nothing more nefarious than a hired gun loitering on the grassy
knoll of the fair and balanced court, is there Ted ??
While I am personally sorry to see this set of circumstances visit upon your
family, i really wish you would pick one side of an argument's fence and stay
with it.
"Hired guns" and prosecutor whores either exist or they dont. They cant
absolutely not exist against the ever unpopular Ken Smith and then suddenly
appear en masse against mild and meek Cameron Brown... particularly when i seem
to remember that there were only four doctors in the *entire* state of Colorado
that had the ability to determine "sanity" for legal practice. Even the most
obnoxious law students should retain 1AM rights, dontcha know.
Ted: It IS a fair question, you malicious, evasive @$#*! Would it be
too much to expect for you to actually *ANSWER* it this time?
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
BTW, ready to eat that crow yet?
Why? Cam is in prison, and there is good reason for him to be there.
Really? And how do you know this?
I have no opinion on whether he is guilty or innocent, not having seen the
actual evidence,
So why are you shooting you your mouth off? (Could it be perhaps because you
are psychologically unbalanced?)
but based on what you told us,
What have I told you? I've told you nothing. You're going by all the BS
that you have read in the media. And that's what it is -- BS.
they certainly have probable cause to hold him behind bars.
They have squat. But let me tell you about what I have found out. And then
others will see why you are such a moron for having shot your mouth off about
this. Do you seriously think that this man could have murdered this little
girl? See:
<http://www.freecambrown.org/>
The original accident occurred the day after election day in 2000. Police
investigated back then, but couldn't even find enough evidence against
Cameron to arrest him. The little girl's mother filed a wrongful-death suit
against Cameron. His insurance company conducted an exhaustive investigation
(spending many tens of thousands of dollars) and concluded that the event was
indeed an accident. And the Coroner who examined the body concluded that the
injuries were consistent with Cameron's account of the accident.
Moreover, we know Cameron. He is a very generous and kind-hearted person --
one in a thousand. And we have over a dozen people who are ready to testify
as to what they have seen of his relationship with his daughter -- he loved
her dearly, there is no way that he could have done anything like this.
Indeed, he would have given his life to save hers if he could have.
Also, there is the record of the Orange County Court for family matters,
where the hearings for child support and visitation was heard. It is a
matter of court record that Cameron had great concern for the welfare of his
daughter.
But more imortantly, the child's mother, Cameron's former girlfriend who is
now married to another man, testified under oath in Orange County that her
husband was willing to adopt Lauren. All that was needed was for Cameron to
sign a paper relinquishing his parental rights to Lauren. With that, Cameron
would no longer be responsible for paying child support. But also, he would
not be eligible for visitation. But Cameron loved his daughter too much.
This is a matter of court record in Orange County.
So where is the motive for murder? If Cameron wanted to get out from under
the burden of child support, all he had to do was sign a piece of paper.
There's no case here. It just didn't make any sense -- didn't the DA do any
background research on this? Why try a case which he will almost certainly
lose? And the state's case is ALL circumstantial -- there is absolutely NO
hard evidence against Cameron.
Well, talking with some members of the legal community in Los Angeles, I was
told some things that I found, frankly, astounding. To a man (and woman),
everyone I talked to who knew the particular prosecutor trying this case said
that he is an unscrupulous person, someone with the ethics of a garden slug.
I was also told that this prosecutor had been a member of some elite unit,
the Major Crimes unit, and that he had been removed, presumably because of
his shenanigans, in September of 2003. And he was very resentful that he had
been removed. So he set about to find a case with which he could make a name
for himself. (Or so I have been told.)
So this guy found Cameron's case, and he hired a professional "expert"
witness to make up a report showing Cameron guilty. This purpose of this
report was simply to be able to get an arrest warrant. (I've seen this
report, BTW -- I'm an engineer with scientific training -- and I am not at
all impressed by it -- it seems to be of "bargain quality", with holes big
enough to drive Arnold's Hummer through. A counterexpert should be able to
discredit it quite easily at trial.)
Anyway, the prosecutor got his arrest warrant (I am told that he had a
special judge who he knew would sign it for him), and he had Cameron arrested
-- on charges of capital murder with the special circumstances of lying in
wait (which in California means "no bail").
Several days later this prosecutor held a press conference for the local L.A.
media. During this press conference, he disseminated many lies about Cameron.
Since the media didn't have the other side of the story, they went with what
they had. And these lies were emblazoned across L.A. newspapers and TV
screens, and the stories were picked up and published by news services around
the world.
I am told that this media event was the whole point of the arrest of Cameron
Brown. This particular prosecutor (I am told) has ambitions of becoming the
next Los Angeles County District Attorney. And (I am told) he is arrogant,
and he prides himself in his ability to manipulate and use the media to his
own advantage.
So this case provides him a platform of having removed a mean and vicious
baby-killer from the streets. But this prosecutor (I am told) could not
care less what happens at the trial, since that won't take place until after
the election in November -- which he hopes to win. And the atmosphere that
he has created with his November '03 press conference virtually assures that
this case will NOT be dismissed at the preliminary hearing, regardless how
paper-thin the evidence is. And it IS paper thin.
THAT is what [quite probably] is going on with this case.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
SolarChase wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
"What "evidence"? (Hint: there ain't any. All the prosecutor has is a
"hired gun" who was paid to say what the prosecutor needed him to say.)"
Ahhhhhhh, yes. Nothing more nefarious than a hired gun loitering on the
grassy knoll of the fair and balanced court, is there Ted ??
The "hired gun" testimony must always be considered suspect. The dynamic at
work here necessarily is: only if he says what needs to be said does the
"expert" get paid. So the question becomes, how much did his desire to get
paid influence his testimony?
While I am personally sorry to see this set of circumstances visit upon
your family, i really wish you would pick one side of an argument's fence
and stay with it.
There's no inconsistency here.
"Hired guns" and prosecutor whores either exist or they dont.
They exist.
They cant absolutely not exist against the ever unpopular Ken Smith and
then suddenly appear en masse against mild and meek Cameron Brown
But I never said they didn't exist for Ken Smith.
... particularly when i seem to remember that there were only four doctors
in the *entire* state of Colorado that had the ability to determine
"sanity" for legal practice.
But this is where the analogy breaks down. The state of Colorado doesn't
have an interest in any particular outcome when examining candidates to the
Bar for psychological fitness. They care only about arriving at the CORRECT
outcome: if a particular candidate is NOT psychologically fit, they want to
know about it. The candidate, on the other hand, DOES have an interest in a
particular outcome. That is why the state should properly get to pick the
doctor who performs the examination. And the state of Colorado has a list of
four from which the candidate may choose.
Even the most obnoxious law students should retain 1AM rights, dontcha
know.
And I don't see where Ken Smith has lost ANY of his 1st Amendment rights.
(As for his sanity, that's another matter.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080005090205060003060807
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
BTW, ready to eat that crow yet?
Why? Cam is in prison, and there is good reason for him to be there.
Really? And how do you know this?
Because of what you have admitted in this NG.
I have no opinion on whether he is guilty or innocent, not having seen the
actual evidence,
So why are you shooting you your mouth off?
That hasn't stopped you from gratuitously commenting on my battle
with the Bar, and constantly bringing it up to taunt me. What's fair
for the goose is fair for the hippopotamus.
(Could it be perhaps because you are psychologically unbalanced?)
You mean, like you? Sounds to me as if you're a paranoid @$#*wit
with a persecution complex and/or an overwhelming case of trial
delusion. If you don't think this guy can get your brother-in-law,
think again.
but based on what you told us,
What have I told you? I've told you nothing.
Liar. I'm going by what you told us, and you know it. And you have
told us the only fact that matters. (I've only scanned the NBC blurb,
which doesn't say much of anything substantive.)
You're going by all the BS
that you have read in the media. And that's what it is -- BS.
Says Ted "the girl got a running start and took a flying leap"
Kaldis? The same Ted Kaldis who once assured us he never used the
words "nigger" or "coon?" Our very own latter-day Mark Fuhrman? LOL!
No, Ted. I'm going by *your* admissions. If they are lies, you only
have yourself to blame.
they certainly have probable cause to hold him behind bars.
They have squat. But let me tell you about what I have found out. And then
others will see why you are such a moron for having shot your mouth off about
this. Do you seriously think that this man could have murdered this little
girl?
In a word, yes. Stranger things have happened. And, if the evidence
does show at trial that it could not have been a slip-and-fall, there's
no reasonable explanation other than murder one.
See:
<http://www.freecambrown.org/>
The original accident occurred the day after election day in 2000. Police
investigated back then, but couldn't even find enough evidence against
Cameron to arrest him. The little girl's mother filed a wrongful-death suit
against Cameron. His insurance company conducted an exhaustive investigation
(spending many tens of thousands of dollars) and concluded that the event was
indeed an accident.
Can I presume that you have retained their expert, then?
And the Coroner who examined the body concluded that the
injuries were consistent with Cameron's account of the accident.
Such injuries are also presumably consistent with Cam's throwing her
off the cliff. If you fall twenty stories, you hit hard -- no matter
what induced the fall. The coroner presumably isn't an expert in such
matters. The police appear to have retained someone who is.
Moreover, we know Cameron. He is a very generous and kind-hearted person --
one in a thousand. And we have over a dozen people who are ready to testify
as to what they have seen of his relationship with his daughter -- he loved
her dearly, there is no way that he could have done anything like this.
Indeed, he would have given his life to save hers if he could have.
[Violins in background....]
Also, there is the record of the Orange County Court for family matters,
where the hearings for child support and visitation was heard. It is a
matter of court record that Cameron had great concern for the welfare of his
daughter.
[Mormon Tabernacle Choir in background....]
But more imortantly, the child's mother, Cameron's former girlfriend who is
now married to another man, testified under oath in Orange County that her
husband was willing to adopt Lauren. All that was needed was for Cameron to
sign a paper relinquishing his parental rights to Lauren. With that, Cameron
would no longer be responsible for paying child support. But also, he would
not be eligible for visitation. But Cameron loved his daughter too much.
[with onion fumes sprayed in the air to make audience cry....]
This is a matter of court record in Orange County.
So where is the motive for murder?
According to the press reports, Mum certainly seems to think there's
one. And having slept with the guy, she probably knows him as well as
anyone....
Face facts, Ted. It's just that exactly no one is going to believe
that little Lauren got a running start and then took a flying leap off
the friggin' cliff. The jury will infer a motive from the fact of the
crime -- IF the requisite facts are proven.
If Cameron wanted to get out from under
the burden of child support, all he had to do was sign a piece of paper.
There's no case here. It just didn't make any sense -- didn't the DA do any
background research on this? Why try a case which he will almost certainly
lose?
Ever stop to think that he might win? It all comes down to where she
landed, and if it was consistent with a slip-and-fall. If I'm the D.A.,
I throw in a charge of reckless child endangerment, or whatever CA calls
it -- if anything, your D.A. is cutting Cam a pretty decent break.
And the state's case is ALL circumstantial -- there is absolutely NO
hard evidence against Cameron.
The "hard evidence" is where she landed. It either proves the D.A.'s
case, or it does not. Everything else is just window-dressing.
Well, talking with some members of the legal community in Los Angeles, I was
told some things that I found, frankly, astounding. To a man (and woman),
everyone I talked to who knew the particular prosecutor trying this case said
that he is an unscrupulous person, someone with the ethics of a garden slug.
You mean like James "Will Lie To Win" Coyle, "Cocaine Mary"
Mullarkey, and Susan "Why Don't You Let Go" Hargleroad? LOL!!! My heart
bleeds for you, Teddi!
[I'd tell you a funky little story or two about my case, but they
will have to wait until during and/or after the trial, if I ever get there.]
I was also told that this prosecuto | | |
