|
|
|
Just the other day, I had a preliminary meeting with an area attorney
regarding his possibly taking on a case of mine.
Well, after delving into my case just 25 percent of the way, he
abruptly announced that he would be rejecting my case and gave me a
yarn about there being many possible, yet not-to-be-disclosed,
reasons, many of which having nothing to do with me, for his stance.
He did, however, encourage me to seek representation for my case
elsewhere.
I was chagrined about the whole thing but mostly confused.
I stewed over the matter for almost two hours while mentally reviewing
the details of my meeting with that guy, and then it struck me: his
rejecting me had *everything* to do with me!
He rejected me because I was too smart for him, and he must have
figured that I would eventually catch on to the fact that he is
illiterate!
That's right! Illiterate!
I remembered three significant indications that this lawyer could not
read.
I do know from T.V. reports that many illiterates have successfully
faked their way through elementary schools, high schools, and even
colleges. Now, it seems that law schools can be added to the list.
But what about the bar exam?
Could this guy have gotten someone else to take the bar exam in his
stead?
OK, I'll admit that I don't have proof positive of anything, just very
strong suspicions.
From an ethical standpoint, what should I do, if anything, about my
suspicions?
BTW, I've had interactions with the government on a number of other
unrelated matters, and I have gotten absolutely no satisfaction with
anything. To the contrary, I have seen much inappropriate action on
the part of government, so you can appreciate my hesitancy to get
involved in yet another matter.
P.M.
|
| |
| |
"P.M." <paul_m_5151@yahoo.com> wrote
He did, however, encourage me to seek representation for my case
elsewhere.
Set it down, walk away and take his good advice.
I interviewed with nearly a dozen attornies before I found a fit for a
particular case.
He rejected me because I was too smart for him, and he must have
figured that I would eventually catch on to the fact that he is
illiterate!
My most common quibble with attornies and judges is that they don't, in
fact, read worth a @$#*. While it doesn't extend to all of them by any
means, if I had to pick one professional flaw, it would be that.
They make so much money, that they resent the study/editorial time.
From an ethical standpoint, what should I do, if anything, about my
suspicions?
Nothing.
Just go to another attorney- the woods are full of them. The profession is
*very* competitive, so finding one who will accommodate you is just a matter
of culling through them.
Never pay for a first consultation.
Chas
|
| |
| |
I am curious...What were some of the tell signs that suggested to you
he was illiterate??
It would seem next-to-impossible to be able to be a lawyer and not be
able to read. Did he have a large office, or was he a one-man show?
The reason I ask is, there is a lot of research an attorney must do to
prepare for some cases - I don't imagine he would have that capability
if he couldn't read. Of course, maybe they offer law books on tape
now!
paul_m_5151@yahoo.com (P.M.) wrote in message news:<cbf0c7f4.0402130731.7810f684@posting.google.com>...
Just the other day, I had a preliminary meeting with an area attorney
regarding his possibly taking on a case of mine.
Well, after delving into my case just 25 percent of the way, he
abruptly announced that he would be rejecting my case and gave me a
yarn about there being many possible, yet not-to-be-disclosed,
reasons, many of which having nothing to do with me, for his stance.
He did, however, encourage me to seek representation for my case
elsewhere.
I was chagrined about the whole thing but mostly confused.
I stewed over the matter for almost two hours while mentally reviewing
the details of my meeting with that guy, and then it struck me: his
rejecting me had *everything* to do with me!
He rejected me because I was too smart for him, and he must have
figured that I would eventually catch on to the fact that he is
illiterate!
That's right! Illiterate!
I remembered three significant indications that this lawyer could not
read.
I do know from T.V. reports that many illiterates have successfully
faked their way through elementary schools, high schools, and even
colleges. Now, it seems that law schools can be added to the list.
But what about the bar exam?
Could this guy have gotten someone else to take the bar exam in his
stead?
OK, I'll admit that I don't have proof positive of anything, just very
strong suspicions.
From an ethical standpoint, what should I do, if anything, about my
suspicions?
BTW, I've had interactions with the government on a number of other
unrelated matters, and I have gotten absolutely no satisfaction with
anything. To the contrary, I have seen much inappropriate action on
the part of government, so you can appreciate my hesitancy to get
involved in yet another matter.
P.M.
|
| |
| |
paul_m_5151@yahoo.com (P.M.) wrote in message news:<cbf0c7f4.0402130731.7810f684@posting.google.com>...
Just the other day, I had a preliminary meeting with an area attorney
regarding his possibly taking on a case of mine.
Well, after delving into my case just 25 percent of the way, he
abruptly announced that he would be rejecting my case and gave me a
yarn about there being many possible, yet not-to-be-disclosed,
reasons, many of which having nothing to do with me, for his stance.
He did, however, encourage me to seek representation for my case
elsewhere.
There are lots of reasons why a lawyer would refuse to take a case. He
would not have to disclose his reasons, especially to someone he does
not want as a client.
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous or
malicious, or that he or his firm would have a conflict of interest if
he took your case.
Since he would be subject to discipline if he took a case that he was
required not to take, he would be required to refuse you.
Your inferences that you are smarter than he, or that he is
illiterate, are probably wishful thinking.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
"Mikey" <buffert@consultant.com> wrote
I am curious...What were some of the tell signs that suggested to you
he was illiterate??
He might just mean 'functionally' illiterate, or simply 'disinclined' to
read for content.
I find that they know what each individual word means, very often, but they
have trouble with them being strung together in sentences. They often act on
what they think they read.
YMMV
c.
|
| |
| |
"Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous or
malicious, or that he or his firm would have a conflict of interest if
he took your case.
Or if there were no deep pockets; or the case was outside his specialty
interests, or that the opponent was connected,.....
lots of good reasons.
c.
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green wrote:
paul_m_5151@yahoo.com (P.M.) wrote in message news:<cbf0c7f4.0402130731.7810f684@posting.google.com>...
There are lots of reasons why a lawyer would refuse to take a case. He
would not have to disclose his reasons, especially to someone he does
not want as a client.
From attorneys, honesty never seems to be the best policy.
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous
It's supposed to stop attorneys in theory, but it never seems to in
practice. But for the most part, a good attorney will tell you if your
case is probably frivolous. Some'll even take it (e.g., the McDonald's
hot coffee case)....
or malicious,
This one would never stop an attorney, either in theory or pratice.
or that he or his firm would have a conflict of interest if
he took your case.
The one you forgot is the most common one -- that he wouldn't make
enough money from it. Troll $500,000 through a law firm, and you'd be
surprised what turns up. Even cold-ass losers become interesting....
|
| |
| |
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous or
malicious, or that he or his firm would have a conflict of interest if
he took your case.
Or if there were no deep pockets; or the case was outside his specialty
interests, or that the opponent was connected,.....
lots of good reasons.
An attorney can refuse to accept a case if he/she doesn't like the client,
or the client's beliefs or actions, of simply if the attorney believes the
client will be difficult to work with.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* lawyer@brettweiss.com *
* www.brettweiss.com *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<LJydnV_MRopjnrDd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
My most common quibble with attornies and judges is that they don't, in
fact, read worth a @$#*. While it doesn't extend to all of them by any
means, if I had to pick one professional flaw, it would be that.
They make so much money, that they resent the study/editorial time.
I know what you mean, but in this case, I think that the guy was
totally illiterate.
Never pay for a first consultation.
Chas
I agree, but would you believe that I ran into one other guy who
wanted up to $1,000 to tell me if I had a case at all? This reminds me
of employers who collect an application fee from job-seekers knowing
full well that the employers are going to reject more than 95 percent
of the applicants. The lawyer in question can collect $1,000 from each
person who enters the door and pocket the money while telling each
pigeon, "Get lost! You don't have a case!" Why, he could make up to
$250,000 per year (or even more) just by turning people away.
P.M.
|
| |
| |
P.M. wrote:
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<LJydnV_MRopjnrDd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
I know what you mean, but in this case, I think that the guy was
totally illiterate.
It's hard to be illiterate, and still pass the Bar -- it is at
essence a reading comprehension exam.
I agree, but would you believe that I ran into one other guy who
wanted up to $1,000 to tell me if I had a case at all?
Yes, I could. In some cases, the law is as muddy as the facts, and
one fact can turn a certain winner into a cold-ass loser or vice versa.
Sometimes, you actually need to research the law.
|
| |
| |
buffert@consultant.com (Mikey) wrote in message news:<aa26c91a.0402131159.256ab005@posting.google.com>...
I am curious...What were some of the tell signs that suggested to you
he was illiterate??
I'm going to pass on this question, but I'll say this much. I call
them as I see them.
It would seem next-to-impossible to be able to be a lawyer and not be
able to read.
It's very possible that this man is a total fraud and not even a
member of the bar. That's why I asked to begin with: what ethics apply
to me as a prospective client in this situation?
Did he have a large office, or was he a one-man show?
He has a sizable office and associates. Having associates may
facilitate his being illiterate. He may at the eleventh hour have one
of his associates sub for him in order for him to weasel out of
clutches. I did see one of those other guys; he was a big botchagaloop
with a stupor on his face. The image of this second guy was in stark
contrast to the first guy, but if the first guy is a fraud, then he'd
have to rely on inferior associates to help him out. That's why I
stated in my original post that I must have been too smart for him.
Additionally, the guy's office is in an area with a large
minority/immigrant population who, themselves, don't have the greatest
grasp of the English language, so the fraud of an illiterate can
easily be put over on that type of client base.
The reason I ask is, there is a lot of research an attorney must do to
prepare for some cases - I don't imagine he would have that capability
if he couldn't read. Of course, maybe they offer law books on tape
now!
Legal instruction has been on tape for at least 17 years. Back then, I
had the opportunity to listen to two or three of them, and they were
excellent.
paul_m_5151@yahoo.com (P.M.) wrote in message news:<cbf0c7f4.0402130731.7810f684@posting.google.com>...
|
| |
| |
"P.M." wrote:
Could this guy have gotten someone else to take the bar exam in his stead?
Ken Smith, are you reading this? ... Oh, that's right ... your problem has
to do with getting past the Bar Examiners. Maybe you can hire a ringer?
Remember that _Sopranos_ episode, where they were giving the Series 7 test
(for prospective stockbrokers), and while taking the roll for those present,
when they called out "Christopher Moltisanti", some Asian-looking guy
answered "here"?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
[...]
You don't seem to think that you need ethics to be a lawyer, why should it
matter to you if you have any as a client?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Christopher Green wrote:
There are lots of reasons why a lawyer would refuse to take a case. He
would not have to disclose his reasons, especially to someone he does not
want as a client.
From attorneys, honesty never seems to be the best policy.
Perhaps this goes a long way towards telling us why Ken Smith had wanted to
become a lawyer, given his apparent proclivity to mendacity.
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous
It's supposed to stop attorneys in theory, but it never seems to in
practice. But for the most part, a good attorney will tell you if your
case is probably frivolous. Some'll even take it (e.g., the McDonald's
hot coffee case) ...
or malicious,
This one would never stop an attorney, either in theory or pratice.
And this attitude quite likely goes a long way to explaining why it was that
Ken wasn't able to get past the Bar Examiners' board (who had asked him to
submit to a psychological examination).
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote
From attorneys, honesty never seems to be the best policy.
Perhaps this goes a long way towards telling us why Ken Smith had wanted
to
become a lawyer, given his apparent proclivity to mendacity.
Or why the sitting body of mendacious lawyers would fear to allow an honest
man into their club.
And this attitude quite likely goes a long way to explaining why it was
that
Ken wasn't able to get past the Bar Examiners' board (who had asked him to
submit to a psychological examination).
Sure- trying to join a company of liarsesquires by demonstrating honesty is
pretty crazy in itself.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
From attorneys, honesty never seems to be the best policy.
Perhaps this goes a long way towards telling us why Ken Smith had wanted
to become a lawyer, given his apparent proclivity to mendacity.
Or why the sitting body of mendacious lawyers would fear to allow an honest
man into their club.
Looking upon Ken Smith as honest is like looking upon the Big Bad Wolf as
Santa Claus.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote
Looking upon Ken Smith as honest is like looking upon the Big Bad Wolf as
Santa Claus.
Or the Bar Examiners as anything but lawyers.
Chas
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000702090809050106090007
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"P.M." wrote:
Ken Smith, are you reading this? ... Oh, that's right ... your problem has
to do with getting past the Bar Examiners.
Ted Kaldis, why can't you read your own writing -- or answer my
direct questions?
--------------000702090809050106090007
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedconfesses2.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedconfesses2.eml"
From - Thu Feb 12 21:14:06 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: <402BC523.4080006@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: alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Subject: Re: "Gay" "Marriage"
References: <40159e45$0$18303$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <401E3C48.9030406@it.com> <H_ydnRChleqS7IPdRVn-jg@comcast.com> <dGhpc2lzbWU=.ed5c609c1cfcd969eccbf830bef18ab8@1075757214.nulluser.com> <GqednVMR0K4uXIPdRVn-vA@comcast.com> <b8002be7.0402022313.42eb32e7@posting.google.com> <4020FDD2.6060404@it.com> <D6mdnbFIAsYtt7zdRVn-jw@comcast.com> <40226BBA.1070206@it.com> <Sb2dna5cQPexMb_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> <40238943.7030703@it.com> <402428CE.B73366A3@worldnet.att.net> <4024B961.3040900@it.com> <fOWdnRp0uez_cbndRVn-tA@comcast.com> <4025363C.155A798@worldnet.att.net> <yeydnRyLqKl3o7jdRVn-vg@comcast.com> <4025652C.4650D904@worldnet.att.net> <Q8udnZF_4rH397vd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <4026EAC8.41C0E320@worldnet.att.net> <40272BF4.3000908@it.com> <4027C3D5.FBA12EEC@worldnet.att.net> <4027F3F2.9070402@it.com> <4028FCD4.5D333D04@worldnet.att.net> <40290F00.9080708@it.com> <40296A92.95A38329@worldnet.att.net> <4029C0B9.3090303@it.com> <402BA777.D0F2DE4A@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:26:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.235.113.85
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1076610390 67.235.113.85 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.politics.homosexuality:718887 misc.legal:409271 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178602
X-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken, you obviously have keen insight and a sharp intellect.
Considerable praise coming from you, Ted. Be forewarned that you
will be hit by that quote each and every time you try to assault my
intellect on an ad hominem basis. :)
It's too bad
that you can't seem to overcome your apparent psychological problems and get
that law licence.
What are those "apparent psychological problems," and what
*OBJECTIVE* evidence is there to support such a claim? I've been
married for almost 25 years: a tough thing to do, if you don't have your
priorities in good order and your head screwed on pretty straight.
Before I even bothered to raise a stink, I went to the trouble of
engaging my own psychiatrist witness, to ensure that I was on rock-solid
factual ground. And while I won't reveal the sum and substance of my
conversations with counsel, you can rest assured that I went into this
battle with eyes wide open.
Ted, even the most passionate defender of our system will admit that
it doesn't work perfectly. Guilty men walk free, and even innocent men
will be sent to their death. But we have to believe in the system, and
we have to try our damnedest to ensure that it works.
And when you think about it, it is as much for Cam Brown as it is for
Ken Smith.
Susan Hargleroad asked the question: "Why don't you let go?" When a
Cam Brown sits next to me in the defendant's chair, he has to KNOW that
I won't "let go." For, in a real sense, his very life depends upon it.
He has to *KNOW* that I won't sacrifice him on the altar of
expediency, as you have counselled in my case. And if I won't walk that
extra mile when my career is on the line, how can he trust me to do it
for him?
Tell me when we ought to finally abandon Cam to the hangman's noose,
and I'll tell you when to "let go."
--------------000702090809050106090007--
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000807050409040700010701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
You don't seem to think that you need ethics to be a lawyer, why should it
matter to you if you have any as a client?
Read your own writing, Ted. And answer my question.
--------------000807050409040700010701
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedconfesses2.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedconfesses2.eml"
From - Thu Feb 12 21:14:06 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: <402BC523.4080006@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: alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Subject: Re: "Gay" "Marriage"
References: <40159e45$0$18303$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <401E3C48.9030406@it.com> <H_ydnRChleqS7IPdRVn-jg@comcast.com> <dGhpc2lzbWU=.ed5c609c1cfcd969eccbf830bef18ab8@1075757214.nulluser.com> <GqednVMR0K4uXIPdRVn-vA@comcast.com> <b8002be7.0402022313.42eb32e7@posting.google.com> <4020FDD2.6060404@it.com> <D6mdnbFIAsYtt7zdRVn-jw@comcast.com> <40226BBA.1070206@it.com> <Sb2dna5cQPexMb_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> <40238943.7030703@it.com> <402428CE.B73366A3@worldnet.att.net> <4024B961.3040900@it.com> <fOWdnRp0uez_cbndRVn-tA@comcast.com> <4025363C.155A798@worldnet.att.net> <yeydnRyLqKl3o7jdRVn-vg@comcast.com> <4025652C.4650D904@worldnet.att.net> <Q8udnZF_4rH397vd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <4026EAC8.41C0E320@worldnet.att.net> <40272BF4.3000908@it.com> <4027C3D5.FBA12EEC@worldnet.att.net> <4027F3F2.9070402@it.com> <4028FCD4.5D333D04@worldnet.att.net> <40290F00.9080708@it.com> <40296A92.95A38329@worldnet.att.net> <4029C0B9.3090303@it.com> <402BA777.D0F2DE4A@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:26:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.235.113.85
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1076610390 67.235.113.85 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.politics.homosexuality:718887 misc.legal:409271 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178602
X-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken, you obviously have keen insight and a sharp intellect.
Considerable praise coming from you, Ted. Be forewarned that you
will be hit by that quote each and every time you try to assault my
intellect on an ad hominem basis. :)
It's too bad
that you can't seem to overcome your apparent psychological problems and get
that law licence.
What are those "apparent psychological problems," and what
*OBJECTIVE* evidence is there to support such a claim? I've been
married for almost 25 years: a tough thing to do, if you don't have your
priorities in good order and your head screwed on pretty straight.
Before I even bothered to raise a stink, I went to the trouble of
engaging my own psychiatrist witness, to ensure that I was on rock-solid
factual ground. And while I won't reveal the sum and substance of my
conversations with counsel, you can rest assured that I went into this
battle with eyes wide open.
Ted, even the most passionate defender of our system will admit that
it doesn't work perfectly. Guilty men walk free, and even innocent men
will be sent to their death. But we have to believe in the system, and
we have to try our damnedest to ensure that it works.
And when you think about it, it is as much for Cam Brown as it is for
Ken Smith.
Susan Hargleroad asked the question: "Why don't you let go?" When a
Cam Brown sits next to me in the defendant's chair, he has to KNOW that
I won't "let go." For, in a real sense, his very life depends upon it.
He has to *KNOW* that I won't sacrifice him on the altar of
expediency, as you have counselled in my case. And if I won't walk that
extra mile when my career is on the line, how can he trust me to do it
for him?
Tell me when we ought to finally abandon Cam to the hangman's noose,
and I'll tell you when to "let go."
--------------000807050409040700010701--
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090506070605010901020504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
There are lots of reasons why a lawyer would refuse to take a case. He
would not have to disclose his reasons, especially to someone he does not
want as a client.
From attorneys, honesty never seems to be the best policy.
Perhaps this goes a long way towards telling us why Ken Smith had wanted to
become a lawyer, given his apparent proclivity to mendacity.
Hell, if I had wanted to be a complusive liar, I would have become a
Christian evangelist! Jesus is dead, and the evangelists know it....
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous
or malicious,
And this attitude quite likely goes a long way to explaining why it was that
Ken wasn't able to get past the Bar Examiners' board (who had asked him to
submit to a psychological examination).
No doubt, the Examiners were mortified by my candor....
--------------090506070605010901020504
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedconfesses2.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedconfesses2.eml"
From - Thu Feb 12 21:14:06 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: <402BC523.4080006@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: alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Subject: Re: "Gay" "Marriage"
References: <40159e45$0$18303$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <401E3C48.9030406@it.com> <H_ydnRChleqS7IPdRVn-jg@comcast.com> <dGhpc2lzbWU=.ed5c609c1cfcd969eccbf830bef18ab8@1075757214.nulluser.com> <GqednVMR0K4uXIPdRVn-vA@comcast.com> <b8002be7.0402022313.42eb32e7@posting.google.com> <4020FDD2.6060404@it.com> <D6mdnbFIAsYtt7zdRVn-jw@comcast.com> <40226BBA.1070206@it.com> <Sb2dna5cQPexMb_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> <40238943.7030703@it.com> <402428CE.B73366A3@worldnet.att.net> <4024B961.3040900@it.com> <fOWdnRp0uez_cbndRVn-tA@comcast.com> <4025363C.155A798@worldnet.att.net> <yeydnRyLqKl3o7jdRVn-vg@comcast.com> <4025652C.4650D904@worldnet.att.net> <Q8udnZF_4rH397vd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <4026EAC8.41C0E320@worldnet.att.net> <40272BF4.3000908@it.com> <4027C3D5.FBA12EEC@worldnet.att.net> <4027F3F2.9070402@it.com> <4028FCD4.5D333D04@worldnet.att.net> <40290F00.9080708@it.com> <40296A92.95A38329@worldnet.att.net> <4029C0B9.3090303@it.com> <402BA777.D0F2DE4A@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:26:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.235.113.85
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1076610390 67.235.113.85 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.politics.homosexuality:718887 misc.legal:409271 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178602
X-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken, you obviously have keen insight and a sharp intellect.
Considerable praise coming from you, Ted. Be forewarned that you
will be hit by that quote each and every time you try to assault my
intellect on an ad hominem basis. :)
It's too bad
that you can't seem to overcome your apparent psychological problems and get
that law licence.
What are those "apparent psychological problems," and what
*OBJECTIVE* evidence is there to support such a claim? I've been
married for almost 25 years: a tough thing to do, if you don't have your
priorities in good order and your head screwed on pretty straight.
Before I even bothered to raise a stink, I went to the trouble of
engaging my own psychiatrist witness, to ensure that I was on rock-solid
factual ground. And while I won't reveal the sum and substance of my
conversations with counsel, you can rest assured that I went into this
battle with eyes wide open.
Ted, even the most passionate defender of our system will admit that
it doesn't work perfectly. Guilty men walk free, and even innocent men
will be sent to their death. But we have to believe in the system, and
we have to try our damnedest to ensure that it works.
And when you think about it, it is as much for Cam Brown as it is for
Ken Smith.
Susan Hargleroad asked the question: "Why don't you let go?" When a
Cam Brown sits next to me in the defendant's chair, he has to KNOW that
I won't "let go." For, in a real sense, his very life depends upon it.
He has to *KNOW* that I won't sacrifice him on the altar of
expediency, as you have counselled in my case. And if I won't walk that
extra mile when my career is on the line, how can he trust me to do it
for him?
Tell me when we ought to finally abandon Cam to the hangman's noose,
and I'll tell you when to "let go."
--------------090506070605010901020504--
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070508060409030000070306
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chas wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote
From attorneys, honesty never seems to be the best policy.
Or why the sitting body of mendacious lawyers would fear to allow an honest
man into their club.
You see why I have such a low opinion of Christians generally, Chas?
When 90% of the born-again Christians act like Ted Kaldis, it's easy
to see why I would rather deal with virtually anyone else....
And this attitude quite likely goes a long way to explaining why it was that
Ken wasn't able to get past the Bar Examiners' board (who had asked him to
submit to a psychological examination).
Sure- trying to join a company of liarsesquires by demonstrating honesty is
pretty crazy in itself.
I still want Teddi to answer my question. (He won't, because he is a
mendacious prick who doesn't have the courage to face anything straight
on -- IOW, your garden-variety born-again Christian.)
--------------070508060409030000070306
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedconfesses2.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedconfesses2.eml"
From - Thu Feb 12 21:14:06 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: <402BC523.4080006@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: alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Subject: Re: "Gay" "Marriage"
References: <40159e45$0$18303$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <401E3C48.9030406@it.com> <H_ydnRChleqS7IPdRVn-jg@comcast.com> <dGhpc2lzbWU=.ed5c609c1cfcd969eccbf830bef18ab8@1075757214.nulluser.com> <GqednVMR0K4uXIPdRVn-vA@comcast.com> <b8002be7.0402022313.42eb32e7@posting.google.com> <4020FDD2.6060404@it.com> <D6mdnbFIAsYtt7zdRVn-jw@comcast.com> <40226BBA.1070206@it.com> <Sb2dna5cQPexMb_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> <40238943.7030703@it.com> <402428CE.B73366A3@worldnet.att.net> <4024B961.3040900@it.com> <fOWdnRp0uez_cbndRVn-tA@comcast.com> <4025363C.155A798@worldnet.att.net> <yeydnRyLqKl3o7jdRVn-vg@comcast.com> <4025652C.4650D904@worldnet.att.net> <Q8udnZF_4rH397vd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <4026EAC8.41C0E320@worldnet.att.net> <40272BF4.3000908@it.com> <4027C3D5.FBA12EEC@worldnet.att.net> <4027F3F2.9070402@it.com> <4028FCD4.5D333D04@worldnet.att.net> <40290F00.9080708@it.com> <40296A92.95A38329@worldnet.att.net> <4029C0B9.3090303@it.com> <402BA777.D0F2DE4A@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:26:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.235.113.85
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1076610390 67.235.113.85 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.politics.homosexuality:718887 misc.legal:409271 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178602
X-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken, you obviously have keen insight and a sharp intellect.
Considerable praise coming from you, Ted. Be forewarned that you
will be hit by that quote each and every time you try to assault my
intellect on an ad hominem basis. :)
It's too bad
that you can't seem to overcome your apparent psychological problems and get
that law licence.
What are those "apparent psychological problems," and what
*OBJECTIVE* evidence is there to support such a claim? I've been
married for almost 25 years: a tough thing to do, if you don't have your
priorities in good order and your head screwed on pretty straight.
Before I even bothered to raise a stink, I went to the trouble of
engaging my own psychiatrist witness, to ensure that I was on rock-solid
factual ground. And while I won't reveal the sum and substance of my
conversations with counsel, you can rest assured that I went into this
battle with eyes wide open.
Ted, even the most passionate defender of our system will admit that
it doesn't work perfectly. Guilty men walk free, and even innocent men
will be sent to their death. But we have to believe in the system, and
we have to try our damnedest to ensure that it works.
And when you think about it, it is as much for Cam Brown as it is for
Ken Smith.
Susan Hargleroad asked the question: "Why don't you let go?" When a
Cam Brown sits next to me in the defendant's chair, he has to KNOW that
I won't "let go." For, in a real sense, his very life depends upon it.
He has to *KNOW* that I won't sacrifice him on the altar of
expediency, as you have counselled in my case. And if I won't walk that
extra mile when my career is on the line, how can he trust me to do it
for him?
Tell me when we ought to finally abandon Cam to the hangman's noose,
and I'll tell you when to "let go."
--------------070508060409030000070306--
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Hell, if I had wanted to be a complusive liar,
What do you mean, "if [you] had wanted to be"? Aren't you one already?
I would have become a Christian evangelist! Jesus is dead, and the
evangelists know it ...
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous
It's supposed to stop attorneys in theory, but it never seems to in
practice. But for the most part, a good attorney will tell you if your
case is probably frivolous. Some'll even take it (e.g., the McDonald's
hot coffee case) ...
or malicious,
This one would never stop an attorney, either in theory or pratice.
And this attitude quite likely goes a long way to explaining why it was
that Ken wasn't able to get past the Bar Examiners' board (who had asked
him to submit to a psychological examination).
No doubt, the Examiners were mortified by my candor ...
What, you mean you actually ADMITTED to them that you had no reservations
about bringing a malicious action against someone if you were so inclined???
No wonder they asked you to submit to a psychological examination!
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080205030909050404000909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
What do you mean, "if [you] had wanted to be"? Aren't you one already?
No. But you are. You'd have a bright future in televangelism....
Some important ones would be that he sees your case as frivolous
It's supposed to stop attorneys in theory, but it never seems to in
practice. But for the most part, a good attorney will tell you if your
case is probably frivolous. Some'll even take it (e.g., the McDonald's
hot coffee case) ...
or malicious,
This one would never stop an attorney, either in theory or pratice.
And this attitude quite likely goes a long way to explaining why it was
that Ken wasn't able to get past the Bar Examiners' board (who had asked
him to submit to a psychological examination).
No doubt, the Examiners were mortified by my candor ...
What, you mean you actually ADMITTED to them that you had no reservations
about bringing a malicious action against someone if you were so inclined???
No, you lying sack of #@($. If you knew the law, you would know that
an attorney has no obligation to ask his client why he wishes to pursue
litigation. If a litigant has a legally valid claim, it doesn't matter
to the law whether he is pursuing it out of vengeance or altruism.
Speaking of which, are you EVER going to answer my question?
--------------080205030909050404000909
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedconfesses2.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedconfesses2.eml"
From - Thu Feb 12 21:14:06 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: <402BC523.4080006@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: alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Subject: Re: "Gay" "Marriage"
References: <40159e45$0$18303$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <401E3C48.9030406@it.com> <H_ydnRChleqS7IPdRVn-jg@comcast.com> <dGhpc2lzbWU=.ed5c609c1cfcd969eccbf830bef18ab8@1075757214.nulluser.com> <GqednVMR0K4uXIPdRVn-vA@comcast.com> <b8002be7.0402022313.42eb32e7@posting.google.com> <4020FDD2.6060404@it.com> <D6mdnbFIAsYtt7zdRVn-jw@comcast.com> <40226BBA.1070206@it.com> <Sb2dna5cQPexMb_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> <40238943.7030703@it.com> <402428CE.B73366A3@worldnet.att.net> <4024B961.3040900@it.com> <fOWdnRp0uez_cbndRVn-tA@comcast.com> <4025363C.155A798@worldnet.att.net> <yeydnRyLqKl3o7jdRVn-vg@comcast.com> <4025652C.4650D904@worldnet.att.net> <Q8udnZF_4rH397vd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <4026EAC8.41C0E320@worldnet.att.net> <40272BF4.3000908@it.com> <4027C3D5.FBA12EEC@worldnet.att.net> <4027F3F2.9070402@it.com> <4028FCD4.5D333D04@worldnet.att.net> <40290F00.9080708@it.com> <40296A92.95A38329@worldnet.att.net> <4029C0B9.3090303@it.com> <402BA777.D0F2DE4A@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:26:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.235.113.85
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1076610390 67.235.113.85 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.politics.homosexuality:718887 misc.legal:409271 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178602
X-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken, you obviously have keen insight and a sharp intellect.
Considerable praise coming from you, Ted. Be forewarned that you
will be hit by that quote each and every time you try to assault my
intellect on an ad hominem basis. :)
It's too bad
that you can't seem to overcome your apparent psychological problems and get
that law licence.
What are those "apparent psychological problems," and what
*OBJECTIVE* evidence is there to support such a claim? I've been
married for almost 25 years: a tough thing to do, if you don't have your
priorities in good order and your head screwed on pretty straight.
Before I even bothered to raise a stink, I went to the trouble of
engaging my own psychiatrist witness, to ensure that I was on rock-solid
factual ground. And while I won't reveal the sum and substance of my
conversations with counsel, you can rest assured that I went into this
battle with eyes wide open.
Ted, even the most passionate defender of our system will admit that
it doesn't work perfectly. Guilty men walk free, and even innocent men
will be sent to their death. But we have to believe in the system, and
we have to try our damnedest to ensure that it works.
And when you think about it, it is as much for Cam Brown as it is for
Ken Smith.
Susan Hargleroad asked the question: "Why don't you let go?" When a
Cam Brown sits next to me in the defendant's chair, he has to KNOW that
I won't "let go." For, in a real sense, his very life depends upon it.
He has to *KNOW* that I won't sacrifice him on the altar of
expediency, as you have counselled in my case. And if I won't walk that
extra mile when my career is on the line, how can he trust me to do it
for him?
Tell me when we ought to finally abandon Cam to the hangman's noose,
and I'll tell you when to "let go."
--------------080205030909050404000909--
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
No, you lying sack of #@($. If you knew the law, you would know that an
attorney has no obligation to ask his client why he wishes to pursue
litigation. If a litigant has a legally valid claim, it doesn't matter to
the law whether he is pursuing it out of vengeance or altruism.
So let me get this straight. I would surmise that the legal establishment
doesn't look too favourably upon those who bring legal action out of malice,
or in order to exact vengeance on another. But the Examiners' Board inquiry
panel suspected that this was your motive in going after Bob Larson. So they
asked you about it, and you answered them essentially as you have answered me
above. And they thought to themselves that you must be bloody daft. So they
asked you to submit to a psychological examination, and the rest is history.
Speaking of which, are you EVER going to answer my question?
Maybe I'll get around to it sometime.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote
So let me get this straight. I would surmise that the legal establishment
doesn't look too favourably upon those who bring legal action out of
malice,
or in order to exact vengeance on another.
Nope- irrelevant; given that the cause of action itself isn't frivolous.
Hell; who *wouldn't* be mad after suffering damages?
c.
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090500030603000708020106
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
What, you mean you actually ADMITTED to them that you had no reservations
about bringing a malicious action against someone if you were so
inclined???
So let me get this straight. I would surmise that the legal establishment
doesn't look too favourably upon those who bring legal action out of malice,
or in order to exact vengeance on another.
Ted, are you *STILL* taking "stupid" lessons from Dougg?
Virtually everyone who files a lawsuit does so out of vengeance -- to
obtain redress for an injury. After all, if you could settle a dispute
over brewskis at the local BJ's, you wouldn't be going to court. It is
simply the nature of the beast. Idiot!
But the Examiners' Board inquiry
panel suspected that this was your motive in going after Bob Larson.
If they had, they couldn't do a thing about it and still, stay within
the confines of the Constitution. But 'rights' only matter when either
you or yours lose them, right?
So they
asked you about it, and you answered them essentially as you have answered me
above. And they thought to themselves that you must be bloody daft. So they
asked you to submit to a psychological examination, and the rest is history.
If I could ever get them to admit that, it would be $25 million in my
pocket. Indirect restraints on conduct sheltered by the First Amendment
are just as unconstitutional as direct ones. Read Protect Our Mountain
Environment v. District Court and report back to me.
Speaking of which, are you EVER going to answer my question?
Maybe I'll get around to it sometime.
Translated, Ted doesn't *HAVE* an answer, and he knows it.
Ted, all I can hope is that Cam gets the kind of attorney you and
your family deserve -- not a fighter like me or Major Mori, but one who
will compromise at every turn, even if it means that he gets the gas
chamber. And when you and your sister cry your last tears, you will
remember the many malicious, vindictive and hurtful things you have said
to and about me, and realize that you will have gotten what you deserved.
If your god can sacrifice David and Bathsheba's son to teach David a
lesson, he can kill a complete loser like Cam for you....
--------------090500030603000708020106
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedconfesses2.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedconfesses2.eml"
From - Thu Feb 12 21:14:06 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: <402BC523.4080006@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: alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel
Subject: Re: "Gay" "Marriage"
References: <40159e45$0$18303$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <401E3C48.9030406@it.com> <H_ydnRChleqS7IPdRVn-jg@comcast.com> <dGhpc2lzbWU=.ed5c609c1cfcd969eccbf830bef18ab8@1075757214.nulluser.com> <GqednVMR0K4uXIPdRVn-vA@comcast.com> <b8002be7.0402022313.42eb32e7@posting.google.com> <4020FDD2.6060404@it.com> <D6mdnbFIAsYtt7zdRVn-jw@comcast.com> <40226BBA.1070206@it.com> <Sb2dna5cQPexMb_dRVn-tw@comcast.com> <40238943.7030703@it.com> <402428CE.B73366A3@worldnet.att.net> <4024B961.3040900@it.com> <fOWdnRp0uez_cbndRVn-tA@comcast.com> <4025363C.155A798@worldnet.att.net> <yeydnRyLqKl3o7jdRVn-vg@comcast.com> <4025652C.4650D904@worldnet.att.net> <Q8udnZF_4rH397vd4p2dnA@comcast.com> <4026EAC8.41C0E320@worldnet.att.net> <40272BF4.3000908@it.com> <4027C3D5.FBA12EEC@worldnet.att.net> <4027F3F2.9070402@it.com> <4028FCD4.5D333D04@worldnet.att.net> <40290F00.9080708@it.com> <40296A92.95A38329@worldnet.att.net> <4029C0B9.3090303@it.com> <402BA777.D0F2DE4A@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:26:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.235.113.85
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1076610390 67.235.113.85 (Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.politics.homosexuality:718887 misc.legal:409271 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178602
X-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:26:30 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken, you obviously have keen insight and a sharp intellect.
Considerable praise coming from you, Ted. Be forewarned that you
will be hit by that quote each and every time you try to assault my
intellect on an ad hominem basis. :)
It's too bad
that you can't seem to overcome your apparent psychological problems and get
that law licence.
What are those "apparent psychological problems," and what
*OBJECTIVE* evidence is there to support such a claim? I've been
married for almost 25 years: a tough thing to do, if you don't have | | |
