|
|
|
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040102.html
Defense lawyers often get a hard time for pushing limits. They file
motions that only have a slim chance of winning, and they raise
defenses that may seem improbable at best. (After all, what are the
chances that Laci Peterson was really the victim of a Bay Area Satanic
cult?) But when prosecutors are the ones who push limits in order to
win their cases, it's far more disturbing.
Under legal ethics rules, defense lawyers have an ethical duty to
"zealously" represent their clients. Many interpret that duty --
properly, I think -- to require them to go to the very limits of the
law, though not beyond them, in their clients' defense. But
prosecutors have a very different duty: To ensure that justice is
done. That means not only making sure there is strong evidence against
the defendant before indicting him, but also making sure that he
receives a fair trial.
Recently, two prosecutors' offices -- in the Kobe Bryant, and Michael
Jackson cases, respectively
-- flouted their duty to justice by exhibiting bias against the
defendants they are prosecuting. Proof of this bias should be admitted
during Bryant's and Jackson's trials, so the juries hearing their
cases are aware that those with control of crucial evidence in the
cases may not have been fair-minded toward the defendants.
Why Prosecutorial Bias Can Matter: Prosecutors' Control of Evidence in
Criminal Cases
A fair-minded prosecutor is more likely to be evenhanded in dealing
with evidence -- and will consider defense theories, even though he or
she is not convinced by them, in deciding what evidence to hand over
to the defense. A biased prosecutor will be stingy in giving over
evidence.
Suppose the prosecution, indeed, fails to turn over exculpatory
evidence. And suppose the defense suspects there exists a particular
kind of record that is probably exculpatory, though it hasn't yet
received that record. The defense can then file a motion to try to
convince the court to order the prosecution to produce any such
exculpatory evidence. And if the defense is persuasive, it may get a
court order urging the prosecution to comply with Brady. (Note,
however, that if the defense doesn't even have a clue that this sort
of evidence might exist, or fails to persuade the judge due to the
necessary vagueness of its motion, then it's simply out of luck.)
But again, who decides what evidence, exactly, will be produced in
response to the court order? You guessed it: The prosecution. The
judge isn't going to ransack the prosecutor's file drawers and hand
over to the defense copies of all the evidence the judge thinks is
exculpatory. Instead, the judge will issue the order, and assume the
prosecutor will comply. Thus, if the prosecutor isn't conscientious in
complying with the court order, the prosecutor's failure to properly
do so may never be discovered. In the end, only the prosecutor knows
what lies within his own office's files.
Now consider this: If you were Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson, would
you trust the D.A. in your case -- given events that have occurred so
far -- to turn over all of the evidence in his files that might result
in your being acquitted? My view is that for either defendant to trust
his D.A. to be fair-minded, at this point, would be naive.
|
| |
| |
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote
..... My view is that for either defendant to trust
his D.A. to be fair-minded, at this point, would be naive.
An excellent point- and applicable to every defendant everywhere, and their
prosecutors, one-and-all.
If one would assume that Kobe and Jackson, rich/popular/powerful, would be
subject to irregularities and bias from a prosecutor, how not everyone else,
poor/unknown/powerless?
Chas
|
| |
| |
"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:PYWdnXrFLPY6mcvdRVn-vw@comcast.com...
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote
An excellent point- and applicable to every defendant everywhere, and their
prosecutors, one-and-all.
If one would assume that Kobe and Jackson, rich/popular/powerful, would be
subject to irregularities and bias from a prosecutor, how not everyone else,
poor/unknown/powerless?
Chas
Hey Chas somehow I didn't see you pop up on the thread titled "Woman apologizes for lying to authorities" that was
posted 3/13/2004. Now why would that be...
And please no more "your momma" insults, I just might not be able to stop myself from replying with "Sticks and
stones..."
|
| |
| |
"Nexus" <nexus@at&t.net> wrote
Hey Chas somehow I didn't see you pop up on the thread titled "Woman
apologizes for lying to authorities" that was
posted 3/13/2004. Now why would that be...
And please no more "your momma" insults, I just might not be able to stop
myself from replying with "Sticks and
stones..."
Did it come up on 'misc.legal'?
My agenda isn't generally about gender bias- I don't read anything in the
social action ng's, my interest is in legal issues.
And, don't be insulting, and you won't get insulted- it's just that simple.
Call people names, and you set the timbre of the discussion- wherein I'm
very comfortable, as you've seen so far.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
And, don't be insulting, and you won't get insulted- it's just that simple.
Oh, is that why you think being keep bringing your momma jokes?
Hint: they're mostly laughing at you.
Call people names, and you set the timbre of the discussion- wherein I'm
very comfortable,
No you haven't. If you were comfortable you'd probably have at least a
shot of coming up with something witty, considering this is usenet and
you have all day to figure out what to post before clicking SEND.
as you've seen so far.
Chas
--
MF
See L.A. for class
On March 21 in Los Angeles, former Celtics great (who broke the hearts
of many Lakers fans) Bill Russell had his picture on the scoreboard.
The fans gave him a long ovation.
The previous night, when it was announced that Shaq O'Neal scored his
20,000th point, the fans in Sacramento booed. Then, to make matters
worse, a the game ball was defaced, presumably by a Sacramento fan.
Clinton E. Parish
Sacramento
Rest in Peace, Francis Dayle "Chick" Hearn : 1916 - 2002
|
| |
| |
Chas wrote:
"s_knight8" <s_knight8@hotmail.com> wrote
An excellent point- and applicable to every defendant everywhere, and their
prosecutors, one-and-all.
If one would assume that Kobe and Jackson, rich/popular/powerful, would be
subject to irregularities and bias from a prosecutor, how not everyone else,
poor/unknown/powerless?
Or, subject to politically-motivated prosecution and/or harassment?
Happens every @$#*in' day here in the land of the free....
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Chas wrote:
Or, subject to politically-motivated prosecution and/or harassment?
Happens every @$#*in' day here in the land of the free ...
Our family has had some unpleasant experiences in this regard. (But I don't
believe that Ken Smith has.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070206010704040807070609
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Our family has had some unpleasant experiences in this regard.
Speaking of which, how *DID* Cam's hearing go? (I couldn't *help*
but notice that your website was still up....)
Go ahead! Tell us again why we should believe that your bro-in-law's
illegitimate four-year-old daughter got up a running start, then took a
flying leap off a friggin' cliff -- and why assistant D.A. Craig Hum was
prosecuting your innocent bro-in-law so he'd look good in the upcoming
election (never mind that he wasn't even running!!!), and the detectives
would get a bonus if they caught Cam, and how they spent a fortune on an
expert, and all those other *RUMORS* you've been whining about....
--------------070206010704040807070609
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedstopten.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedstopten.eml"
From - Tue Feb 17 21:36:05 2004
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ba2a9a51!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <40324116.4090900@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: misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,ca.general,alt.true-crime,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Top Ten Reasons Why Cam Brown Couldn't Have Murdered His Illegitimate
Daughter
References: <402EDB4C.EBC59AF6@worldnet.att.net> <20040215040549.28324.00002074@mb-m15.aol.com> <402F75EF.8030900@it.com> <102v1sb7slngmde@corp.supernews.com> <402F9FDA.34061870@worldnet.att.net> <102vc8anngvikd0@corp.supernews.com> <x0PXb.399$kR3.34@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <402FC9E6.167FFFA1@worldnet.att.net> <V85Yb.9787$kR3.5857@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <40310396.B475890D@worldnet.att.net> <40312F9A.2020908@it.com> <qlaYb.8260$fE4.254@bignews5.bellsouth.net> <40313A31.98957B56@worldnet.att.net> <403159D8.4090207@it.com> <K9dYb.63702$8a5.26872@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <4031812E.5050106@it.com> <4031A164.7E79F878@worldnet.att.net> <4031FFC7.5030300@it.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------010500030208070406090901"
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:29:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.234.239.227
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1077035342 67.234.239.227 (Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net misc.legal:410425 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178834 ca.general:103643 alt.true-crime:831465 alt.politics.homosexuality:721313
X-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Top Ten Reasons Why Cameron Brown Couldn't
Have Murdered His Illegitimate Daughter
10. The cops lusted after his Mike Ditka autograph.
9. Is this (http://www.freecambrown.org/pictures/xPix06.jpg) the face
of a murd-- (er, on second thought, strike that!)
8. It was the carpet-munching swarthy dot-head fat chick behind the
grassy knoll (see some of Teddi's Greatest Hits, attached).
7. Assistant D.A. Craig Hum is a "stealth candidate" for L.A.
District Attorney. (http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/la/county.html)
6. They couldn't find enough LEGITIMATE crimes in L.A. to investigate.
5. If no one saw it, it couldn't have happened.
4. The State's expert witness was paid.
3. "BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion,
b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You know
sh*t." [Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** ast*r*sks. :) ]
2. It is reasonable to think a four-year-old girl would get a running
start and take a flying leap off that cliff. [I'm not making this up --
Ted actually suggested this!]
1. God TOLD Ted Kaldis while he was reading his Bible on the #@($ter.
Teddi, get a @$#*in' grip!!!!! You are totally out of control, Dude!
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedracistnew.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedracistnew.txt"
Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys
in. Why shouldn't they let me in? At least I'm not from a completely
alien culture.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What other words are there? "Gook". "Slope". "Slant-eye". The list
continues further downhill from here.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
BTW, you're not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Speaking of which, how *DID* Cam's hearing go?
It had to be put off, for reasons which don't concern you, and which I won't
bother getting into here.
(I couldn't *help* but notice that your website was still up ...)
And it'll probably stay up for awhile, anyway. After he gets out, this will
probably turn into a campaign to get Hurtado overturned -- or at least its
effects in California, by having the state Constitution amended.
Go ahead! Tell us again why we should believe that your bro-in-law's
illegitimate four-year-old daughter got up a running start, then took a
flying leap off a friggin' cliff
I don't know that she necessarily did. But the converse of that is NOT that
he picked her up and threw her over a cliff. The burden is upon the state to
substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of murder was committed
here -- and they can't, because it wasn't. (You can wipe your @ss with their
"expert's" report.)
-- and why assistant D.A. Craig Hum was prosecuting your innocent bro-in-
law
And he indeed IS innocent. He didn't kill his little daughter, whom he loved
dearly, and who died in a tragic accident.
so he'd look good in the upcoming election (never mind that he wasn't even
running!!!),
Hey, I only passed on some information that I had heard from members of the
Los Angeles legal community. (And do you suppose that a lawyer might perhaps
lie?)
and the detectives would get a bonus if they caught Cam,
Again, that was something a lawyer told us. (And frankly, it did strike me
as somewhat incredible when I heard it. But if it's true, I'd sure like to
prove it.)
and how they spent a fortune on an expert,
They did. Thrice the usual amount.
and all those other *RUMORS* you've been whining about ...
What rumours? There are also some facts that I can state. Such as for
example, that Ken Smith was asked to submit to a psychological examination by
an inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar
Association, who were reviewing his application to practise law in the state
of Colorado. Wait ... Ken Smith ... that's YOU!
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040306010908050600000804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
It had to be put off, for reasons which don't concern you, and which I won't
bother getting into here.
Aaaahhh. Sounds like your attorney didn't *HAVE* that bang-up
defense ready to roll.
And it'll probably stay up for awhile, anyway. After he gets out, this will
probably turn into a campaign to get Hurtado overturned -- or at least its
effects in California, by having the state Constitution amended.
A laudable goal. Now, why aren't you busy making an argument for it?
Hell, I'll even kibbutz, should I find the time.
Go ahead! Tell us again why we should believe that your bro-in-law's
illegitimate four-year-old daughter got up a running start, then took a
flying leap off a friggin' cliff
I don't know that she necessarily did. But the converse of that is NOT that
he picked her up and threw her over a cliff. The burden is upon the state to
substantiate beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of murder was committed
here -- and they can't, because it wasn't. (You can wipe your @ss with their
"expert's" report.)
As I told you before, it all comes down to where she landed. If you
can't find a credible explanation for it -- and something one hell of a
lot better than your "she got a running start, then took a flyin' leap"
argument -- he's as good as worm-food.
-- and why assistant D.A. Craig Hum was prosecuting your innocent bro-in-
law
And he indeed IS innocent. He didn't kill his little daughter, whom he loved
dearly, and who died in a tragic accident.
Based primarily on what *you* have told me (and what little else I've
been able to glean from other sources), I think it more likely than not
that he did it, but somewhat unlikely that he will be convicted for it.
Hey, I only passed on some information that I had heard from members of the
Los Angeles legal community. (And do you suppose that a lawyer might perhaps
lie?)
Check out your rumors before you let 'em fly like a Lauren off a
cliff -- if you ever got something of value, no one would believe you.
and the detectives would get a bonus if they caught Cam,
Again, that was something a lawyer told us. (And frankly, it did strike me
as somewhat incredible when I heard it. But if it's true, I'd sure like to
prove it.)
It's not credible on its face; you'd have to let out half the felons
in L.A.
and how they spent a fortune on an expert,
They did. Thrice the usual amount.
The best experts command top dollar. We're talking about the murder
of a child, for cry-iy! I'd rather expect them to go top-shelf.
and all those other *RUMORS* you've been whining about ...
What rumours? There are also some facts that I can state. Such as for
example, that Ken Smith was asked to submit to a psychological examination by
an inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar
Association, who were reviewing his application to practise law in the state
of Colorado. Wait ... Ken Smith ... that's YOU!
At least, they had *A REASON* to put Cam Brown behind bars!!! Your
arguments for his innocence, otoh, have a certain David Letterman-like
quality.... :)
--------------040306010908050600000804
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedstopten.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedstopten.eml"
From - Tue Feb 17 21:36:05 2004
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ba2a9a51!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <40324116.4090900@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: misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,ca.general,alt.true-crime,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Top Ten Reasons Why Cam Brown Couldn't Have Murdered His Illegitimate
Daughter
References: <402EDB4C.EBC59AF6@worldnet.att.net> <20040215040549.28324.00002074@mb-m15.aol.com> <402F75EF.8030900@it.com> <102v1sb7slngmde@corp.supernews.com> <402F9FDA.34061870@worldnet.att.net> <102vc8anngvikd0@corp.supernews.com> <x0PXb.399$kR3.34@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <402FC9E6.167FFFA1@worldnet.att.net> <V85Yb.9787$kR3.5857@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <40310396.B475890D@worldnet.att.net> <40312F9A.2020908@it.com> <qlaYb.8260$fE4.254@bignews5.bellsouth.net> <40313A31.98957B56@worldnet.att.net> <403159D8.4090207@it.com> <K9dYb.63702$8a5.26872@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <4031812E.5050106@it.com> <4031A164.7E79F878@worldnet.att.net> <4031FFC7.5030300@it.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------010500030208070406090901"
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:29:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.234.239.227
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1077035342 67.234.239.227 (Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net misc.legal:410425 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178834 ca.general:103643 alt.true-crime:831465 alt.politics.homosexuality:721313
X-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Top Ten Reasons Why Cameron Brown Couldn't
Have Murdered His Illegitimate Daughter
10. The cops lusted after his Mike Ditka autograph.
9. Is this (http://www.freecambrown.org/picture
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080300090600090701020705
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
... My view is that for either defendant to trust his D.A. to be fair-
minded, at this point, would be naive.
An excellent point- and applicable to every defendant everywhere, and
their prosecutors, one-and-all.
If one would assume that Kobe and Jackson, rich/popular/powerful, would be
subject to irregularities and bias from a prosecutor, how not everyone
else, poor/unknown/powerless?
Our family has had some unpleasant experiences in this regard. (But I don't
believe that Ken Smith has.)
If you spent more time READING cases, and less time *DRINKING* them,
you might even be educated sufficiently to offer an informed opinion.
--------------080300090600090701020705
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedisdead2.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedisdead2.txt"
[edited for brevity]
Subject: Re: Christianity has compelling proofs
Date: 13 Mar 2002 08:53:43 -0800
From: kaldis@home.com (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism
Ken Smith wrote:
Teresita wrote:
Ted feels no shame in such an endeavor, because he needs the false hope
Christianity provides far more.
Christianity provides _TRUE_ hope. If only Ken would learn how to avail
himself of it, he would certainly be far happier.
He often comes home to an empty hotel room in a strange city, and probably
has cause to wonder whether life has any meaning at all.
Nah, that never happens. I'll plug in my laptop, connect through the network
(if LodgeNet is available there) or else dial up Worldnet, and start pounding
away. And I'll turn on the tube and see what's on. (If I'm in Dallas, they
have heaps of religious programming on the TV there.) Or maybe I'll just dig
the Gideons Bible out of the drawer and start reading and meditating on the
Word of God. Or if I'm not in such a spiritual mood, I might run down to the
hotel bar for a few brewski's and shoot the bull with the bartender.
[snipped here for brevity]
--------------080300090600090701020705--
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Aaaahhh. Sounds like your attorney didn't *HAVE* that bang-up defense
ready to roll.
It was put off for reasons other than this, but that doesn't concern you.
(I couldn't *help* but notice that your website was still up ...)
And it'll probably stay up for awhile, anyway. After he gets out, this
will probably turn into a campaign to get Hurtado overturned -- or at
least its effects in California, by having the state Constitution amended.
A laudable goal. Now, why aren't you busy making an argument for it?
What, you need an argument for it? (Oh, that's right ... the Colorado Bar
Examiners' Board had some questions concerning your suitability to practise
law.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070001080408020002030603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
It was put off for reasons other than this, but that doesn't concern you.
But the issue here is not procedure. Rather, it is about politically
motivated prosecution. No body's after Cam Brown because he pissed off
a government official with his speech but rather, because he apparently
threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff.
(I couldn't *help* but notice that your website was still up ...)
And it'll probably stay up for awhile, anyway. After he gets out, this
will probably turn into a campaign to get Hurtado overturned -- or at
least its effects in California, by having the state Constitution amended.
A laudable goal. Now, why aren't you busy making an argument for it?
What, you need an argument for it?
To be candid, based on what you have told us here (I am able to make
allowances for your inability to present crucial facts coherently), your
bro-in-law ain't exactly the poster-child for the inherent injustice of
Hurtado. If their expert is right -- and I think it likely -- there is
a very good chance that Cam Brown did murder his illegitimate daughter.
(IIRC, exactly no one sided with you. NO ONE!)
(Oh, that's right ... the Colorado Bar
Examiners' Board had some questions concerning your suitability to practise
law.)
But L.A. District Attorney Craig Hum has *GOOD REASON* to believe
that Cameron Brown threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a
cliff. And your protestations regarding his purported innocence and
concomitant vague charges of prosecutorial misconduct have simply been
nothing short of comical (see attached).
--------------070001080408020002030603
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedstopten.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedstopten.eml"
From - Tue Feb 17 21:36:05 2004
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ba2a9a51!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <40324116.4090900@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: misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,ca.general,alt.true-crime,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Top Ten Reasons Why Cam Brown Couldn't Have Murdered His Illegitimate
Daughter
References: <402EDB4C.EBC59AF6@worldnet.att.net> <20040215040549.28324.00002074@mb-m15.aol.com> <402F75EF.8030900@it.com> <102v1sb7slngmde@corp.supernews.com> <402F9FDA.34061870@worldnet.att.net> <102vc8anngvikd0@corp.supernews.com> <x0PXb.399$kR3.34@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <402FC9E6.167FFFA1@worldnet.att.net> <V85Yb.9787$kR3.5857@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <40310396.B475890D@worldnet.att.net> <40312F9A.2020908@it.com> <qlaYb.8260$fE4.254@bignews5.bellsouth.net> <40313A31.98957B56@worldnet.att.net> <403159D8.4090207@it.com> <K9dYb.63702$8a5.26872@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <4031812E.5050106@it.com> <4031A164.7E79F878@worldnet.att.net> <4031FFC7.5030300@it.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------010500030208070406090901"
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:29:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.234.239.227
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1077035342 67.234.239.227 (Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net misc.legal:410425 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178834 ca.general:103643 alt.true-crime:831465 alt.politics.homosexuality:721313
X-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Top Ten Reasons Why Cameron Brown Couldn't
Have Murdered His Illegitimate Daughter
10. The cops lusted after his Mike Ditka autograph.
9. Is this (http://www.freecambrown.org/pictures/xPix06.jpg) the face
of a murd-- (er, on second thought, strike that!)
8. It was the carpet-munching swarthy dot-head fat chick behind the
grassy knoll (see some of Teddi's Greatest Hits, attached).
7. Assistant D.A. Craig Hum is a "stealth candidate" for L.A.
District Attorney. (http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/la/county.html)
6. They couldn't find enough LEGITIMATE crimes in L.A. to investigate.
5. If no one saw it, it couldn't have happened.
4. The State's expert witness was paid.
3. "BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion,
b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You know
sh*t." [Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** ast*r*sks. :) ]
2. It is reasonable to think a four-year-old girl would get a running
start and take a flying leap off that cliff. [I'm not making this up --
Ted actually suggested this!]
1. God TOLD Ted Kaldis while he was reading his Bible on the #@($ter.
Teddi, get a @$#*in' grip!!!!! You are totally out of control, Dude!
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedracistnew.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedracistnew.txt"
Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
But the issue here is not procedure. Rather, it is about politically
motivated prosecution. No body's after Cam Brown because he pissed off
a government official with his speech but rather,
No, not with his speech. But there might be an element of "CYA" here. As
well as a healthy dose of chest-thumping for nailing someone's scalp to the
wall, regardless of whether he actually happens to be guilty of what he is
charged with.
because he apparently threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a
cliff.
He did NOT throw his daughter off any cliff. Everyone who knows him knows
how happy and proud he was to be a father, and how much he loved his little
daughter. Anyone who has investigated the issue and comes away with the
impression that he could have harmed his daughter has to be smoking something
really potent. (Or else they have another agenda.) It just didn't happen.
(I couldn't *help* but notice that your website was still up ...)
And it'll probably stay up for awhile, anyway. After he gets out, this
will probably turn into a campaign to get Hurtado overturned -- or at
least its effects in California, by having the state Constitution
amended.
A laudable goal. Now, why aren't you busy making an argument for it?
What, you need an argument for it?
To be candid, based on what you have told us here (I am able to make
allowances for your inability to present crucial facts coherently),
[Innuendo.]
your bro-in-law ain't exactly the poster-child for the inherent injustice
of Hurtado.
Why not?
If their expert is right
Their "expert" was hired to try to justify a foregone conclusion, and he was
paid handsomely for it. But his report will not stand up to scientific
scrutiny.
-- and I think it likely
That is because you know squat. You have no legitimate basis for making such
an unfounded statement.
-- there is a very good chance that Cam Brown did murder his illegitimate
daughter.
There is _NO_ chance that he did. And there is MUCH evidence indicating
exactly the opposite.
(IIRC, exactly no one sided with you. NO ONE!)
Wrong, bucko.
(Oh, that's right ... the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board had some questions
concerning your suitability to practise law.)
But L.A. District Attorney Craig Hum has *GOOD REASON* to believe that
Cameron Brown threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff.
He doesn't have any more reason to think so than you do. Which is squat.
And your protestations regarding his purported innocence
His ACTUAL innocence.
and concomitant vague charges of prosecutorial misconduct
Yeah, well, I suppose they have to try to make themselves look good somehow.
After all, they couldn't get O.J., so now they go after someone who doesn't
have nearly as much money, never mind that he's actually quite obviously
innocent of the charge of murder.
have simply been nothing short of comical (see attached).
[elided]
But as far as I can tell, you are no closer to getting a licence to practise
law in Colorado than you were on 13 January, 2000.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010807060003060900000309
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[snip]
But the issue here is not procedure. Rather, it is about politically
motivated prosecution. Nobody's after Cam Brown because he pissed off
a government official with his speech but rather,
No, not with his speech. But there might be an element of "CYA" here. As
well as a healthy dose of chest-thumping for nailing someone's scalp to the
wall, regardless of whether he actually happens to be guilty of what he is
charged with.
On the face of it, it appears that D.A. Craig Hum showed considerable
professionalism and restraint in not arresting Cam Brown until they had
enough evidence to go to trial. Jon-Benet should be so lucky....
But even that is beside the point. You say we are to believe that
Cam Brown is not guilty of throwing his illegitimate four-year-old
daughter off a cliff because *YOU* claim that the evidence is weak --
and because you claim WITHOUT A SHRED OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that the D.A.
is covering for the Sheriff's office but yet, you can say *in spite of*
the evidence that that the Tenth Circuit clearly disregarded
black-letter law in *MY* case, that judges don't "cover" for other judges?
Every argument you throw up here eventually bites you in the ass.
And with an ass like yours....
because he apparently threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a
cliff.
He did NOT throw his daughter off any cliff.
District Attorney Craig Hum begs to differ and, based on what we have
seen here, it is patently obvious that he has the stronger argument (see
attached).
Everyone who knows him knows
how happy and proud he was to be a father, and how much he loved his little
daughter.
And everyone who actually knows me knows that I am a poster-child for
mental stability. Let's talk about the string of unmitigated disasters
that pass for your "romantic relationships," shall we? Or, your insane
rants regarding homosexuality, which reveal your sexual dysfuntionalism.
Or your extreme bigotry. Your unbalanced religious views. Your point?
Anyone who has investigated the issue and comes away with the
impression that he could have harmed his daughter has to be smoking something
really potent. (Or else they have another agenda.) It just didn't happen.
Anyone who has actually investigated the issue and comes away with
the impression that I am "mentally unstable" has to be snorting
something white and potent. (Or else they have another agenda -- like YOU.)
(I couldn't *help* but notice that your website was still up ...)
And it'll probably stay up for awhile, anyway. After he gets out, this
will probably turn into a campaign to get Hurtado overturned -- or at
least its effects in California, by having the state Constitution
amended.
A laudable goal. Now, why aren't you busy making an argument for it?
What, you need an argument for it?
To be candid, based on what you have told us here (I am able to make
allowances for your inability to present crucial facts coherently),
[Innuendo.]
I'm referring to your website. I mean, if you were defending Hitler,
would you be showing pictures of him playing with dogs and being kind to
small children? I mean, "Jeffrey Dahmer was such a *good* little boy!"
LOL!
Show us facts, documents, case law. If I had the forensic report,
I'd even run it by Henry Lee (I might *be* able to do that in the
reasonably near future). You're simply not bright enough to get with
the program, Ted -- evidence that official misconduct is common bolsters
my case, but your denials of same are fatal to yours. We have *no*
reason to believe that your charges of misconduct are substantial -- and
every one of your rumors that can be checked heretofore have been proven
false.
As near as I can tell, the L.A. authorities are prosecuting Cam Brown
by the book, and are doing an unassailable job of it. But as with your
hokey claim that Jesus rose from the dead, I am willing to be persuaded
by objectively persuasive evidence.
your bro-in-law ain't exactly the poster-child for the inherent injustice
of Hurtado.
Why not?
To not put too fine a spin on it, the facts you've given us are
awful! Even if he didn't throw her off, Cam showed such depraved
indifference toward Lauren's welfare that a jury could convict him of
murder on that alone. And even if they don't get the death penalty, the
other inmates would probably take care of the job. Remember Father
Geoghan....
If their expert is right
Their "expert" was hired to try to justify a foregone conclusion, and he was
paid handsomely for it. But his report will not stand up to scientific
scrutiny.
Says reputed forensic scholar Dr. Theodore Kaldis, B.S., M.I.C.K.E.Y.
M.O.U.S.E. LOL! The Los Angeles D.A. would buy whatever opinion money
could buy, but the Colorado Board of Law Examiners won't stoop so low?!
Again, every argument you make bites you in the ass (and with an ass
of *THAT* size, it's pretty damn hard to miss)....
Look at the bright side: At least, Cam Brown doesn't have to pay for
his own executioner. :)
-- and I think it likely
That is because you know squat. You have no legitimate basis for making such
an unfounded statement.
At this stage, I can only go on what you've told us, and while it may
be due to your incompetence as an advocate, you've told us enough that
we can fairly conclude that Cam Brown is a child-murderer. And even if
he avoided the gas chamber, the other inmates would take care of him....
-- there is a very good chance that Cam Brown did murder his illegitimate
daughter.
There is _NO_ chance that he did.
That's absolute nonsense! There's always a possibility, whether it
is remote or likely -- Cam was in the right place at the right time, and
as far as we know, no one else was.
And there is MUCH evidence indicating exactly the opposite.
Says you. You'll lie and distort whenever it serves your purposes --
and you obviously have a horse in Cam's race.
(IIRC, exactly no one sided with you. NO ONE!)
Wrong, bucko.
Certainly not on USENET! (But the same could be said about those who
agree with me -- they're not all on-line, and include some fairly sharp
legal minds.)
(Oh, that's right ... the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board had some questions
concerning your suitability to practise law.)
They didn't -- which is why they had to invent it. Hence, the order
for the psych exam, to be conducted by their corrupt pallies.
But L
|
| |
| |
en Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
On the face of it,
"On the face of it" ... that's all Ken has got to go with. Ken knows NOTHING
of the details of this case. Ken's reasoning runs something like this: "they
arrested him, therefore he must be guilty. And since he's guilty, that's why
they arrested him". Typical of Ken. Is it any wonder, then, that Ken failed
to get a licence to practise law in Colorado?
it appears that D.A. Craig Hum showed considerable professionalism and
restraint in not arresting Cam Brown until they had enough evidence to go
to trial.
What sort of "professionalism" is it to hire someone (at an exorbitant price,
charged to the taxpayers) to manufacture "evidence", because they don't have
any of their own? (Because there ain't any, because he didn't do it.)
Moreover, it has NOT been established that they have enough evidence to go to
trial. That will happen at the preliminary hearing, which hasn't been held
yet. (And at which we will show their "expert's" report to be completely
worthless.)
Jon-Benet should be so lucky ...
But even that is beside the point. You say we are to believe that Cam
Brown is not guilty of throwing his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off
a cliff because *YOU* claim that the evidence is weak -- and because you
claim WITHOUT A SHRED OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that the D.A. is covering for
the Sheriff's office
F*** you. I'm not going to show what we have here. The proper place for the
evidence to be presented is in court, and that is where it will be presented.
but yet, you can say *in spite of* the evidence that that the Tenth Circuit
clearly disregarded black-letter law in *MY* case,
What are you on about? You were told straight-out that the U.S. Supreme
Court was the ONLY venue in which you could file an appeal, and yet you went
to Federal District Court anyway. And Judge Nottingham understandably threw
your case out, because you ran afoul of Rooker-Feldman. And the 10th Circuit
concurred. So what "black-letter law" did they disregard?
that judges don't "cover" for other judges?
I told you that how long ago, you loser?
Every argument you throw up here eventually bites you in the ass. And with
an ass like yours ...
Innuendo.
because he apparently threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a
cliff.
He did NOT throw his daughter off any cliff.
District Attorney Craig Hum begs to differ
And he will have to prove his case in court. And he won't be able to.
and, based on what we have seen here, it is patently obvious that he has
the stronger argument
What "argument"? I keep telling you, you can wipe your hind end with their
"expert's" report.
(see attached).
[Ken's nonsense elided]
Everyone who knows him knows how happy and proud he was to be a father,
and how much he loved his little daughter.
And everyone who actually knows me knows that I am a poster-child for
mental stability.
If so, you CERTAINLY can't tell that from your behaviour here. (Or from your
antics in Federal Court trying to get the Bar Examiner' decision overturned.)
Let's talk about the string of unmitigated disasters that pass for your
"romantic relationships," shall we?
If you want. What do you know about this?
Or, your insane rants regarding homosexuality,
I have merely pointed out that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. How is
that a "rant"?
which reveal your sexual dysfuntionalism.
What "sexual dysfunctionalism"? I have a healthy libido (which I am able to
restrain to a greater extent than, say, Bill Clinton).
Or your extreme bigotry.
What "bigotry"? I'm no bigot.
Your unbalanced religious views. Your point?
What "unbalanced religious views"? You're the one with those. Therefore my
point is that perhaps the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board might have been on to
something.
Anyone who has investigated the issue and comes away with the impression
that he could have harmed his daughter has to be smoking something really
potent. (Or else they have another agenda.) It just didn't happen.
Anyone who has actually investigated the issue and comes away with the
impression that I am "mentally unstable" has to be snorting something white
and potent.
But what other conclusion can we draw from looking at your behaviour here
(and before the Federal courts)?
(Or else they have another agenda -- like YOU.)
What "other agenda" do I have? And why?
(I couldn't *help* but notice that your website was still up ...)
And it'll probably stay up for awhile, anyway. After he gets out,
this will probably turn into a campaign to get Hurtado overturned --
or at least its effects in California, by having the state
Constitution amended.
A laudable goal. Now, why aren't you busy making an argument for it?
What, you need an argument for it?
To be candid, based on what you have told us here (I am able to make
allowances for your inability to present crucial facts coherently),
[Innuendo.]
I'm referring to your website. I mean, if you were defending Hitler, would
you be showing pictures of him playing with dogs and being kind to small
children? I mean, "Jeffrey Dahmer was such a *good* little boy!" LOL!
Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't charged with just one murder.
Show us facts, documents, case law.
Too early. Wait until after the preliminary hearing.
If I had the forensic report, I'd even run it by Henry Lee (I might *be*
able to do that in the reasonably near future).
Get it yourself. It's a public document.
You're simply not bright enough to get with the program, Ted -- evidence
that official misconduct is common bolsters my case,
Bullsh*t! What goes on in Los Angeles County doesn't affect what goes on in
Denver.
but your denials of same are fatal to yours. We have *no* reason to
believe that your charges of misconduct are substantial -- and every one of
your rumors that can be checked heretofore have been proven false.
And the rumour that I presented was clearly designated as just that and
nothing more -- a rumour. For all I know, it was just some lawyer trying to
big-note himself by telling us how much he knew about what was going on
behind the scenes, so that he could win our business.
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080907080506020408060401
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
"On the face of it" ... that's all Ken has got to go with. Ken knows NOTHING
of the details of this case. Ken's reasoning runs something like this: "they
arrested him, therefore he must be guilty. And since he's guilty, that's why
they arrested him". Typical of Ken.
Substantially all I know about the Cameron Brown child-murder case is
what you have told us, which is more than enough for us to conclude that
the authorities had probable cause to arrest him for the murder of his
illegitimate four-year-old daughter.
Is it any wonder, then, that Ken failed
to get a licence to practise law in Colorado?
Ted's reasoning runs something like this: "The Board of Law Examiners
claims to have had questions about Smith's mental fitness to practice
law (and he doesn't agree with me and REFUSES TO SUCK MY JESUS' COCK!)"
and therefore, Smith must not be "mentally fit" to practice law. Sound
familiar?
Every argument you throw up here bites you in the ass, Teddi. Every
stinkin' one!
it appears that D.A. Craig Hum showed considerable professionalism and
restraint in not arresting Cam Brown until they had enough evidence to go
to trial.
What sort of "professionalism" is it to hire someone (at an exorbitant price,
charged to the taxpayers) to manufacture "evidence", because they don't have
any of their own?
You ridiculous oaf, Ted, there's a difference between "manufacturing"
evidence and hiring someone to *interpret* it. Now, if they hired seven
experts who decided that Cam didn't do it, and they went with the eighth
that did, there'd be a real problem. But hiring Henry Lee on a big case
involving the murder of a child makes perfect sense....
(Because there ain't any, because he didn't do it.)
Says Teddi, who must be channeling his monkey-god again.
Moreover, it has NOT been established that they have enough evidence to go to
trial. That will happen at the preliminary hearing, which hasn't been held
yet. (And at which we will show their "expert's" report to be completely
worthless.)
What you believe will happen is of no consequence; all that matters
is that D.A. Craig Hum believed that he did, and as such, was simply
doing his job in a PROFESSIONAL manner.
Jon-Benet should be so lucky ...
F*** you. I'm not going to show what we have here.
IOW, your claim is unsupported by *any* credible evidence and as
such, we can conclude that you are a liar. After all, if you recall,
you used the same argument on me.... :)
The proper place for the
evidence to be presented is in court, and that is where it will be presented.
Moi, aussi. By your logic, you cannot conclude that I am not
mentally fit to practice law, and your remarks to the contrary are libelous.
So, when are *YOU* going to apologize to me, Ted Zeppelin?
but yet, you can say *in spite of* the evidence that that the Tenth Circuit
clearly disregarded black-letter law in *MY* case,
What are you on about? You were told straight-out that the U.S. Supreme
Court was the ONLY venue in which you could file an appeal, and yet you went
to Federal District Court anyway.
But the black-letter law says otherwise. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S.
247 (1978) (regarding the deprivation of due process). Roe v. Ogden,
235 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2001) (regarding the right to bring a facial
challenge to the admission statute).
And Judge Nottingham understandably threw
your case out, because you ran afoul of Rooker-Feldman.
Since when can Rooker-Feldman be used to throw out facial challenges
to a statute? D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)
SPECIFICALLY states otherwise. Again, Nottingham disregarded the very
precedent he used to throw out my case. How much clearer does it have
to be?
And the 10th Circuit
concurred. So what "black-letter law" did they disregard?
The cases cited above. Happens on a fairly regular basis. See,
e.g., Anthony D'Amato [Professor, Northwestern School of Law],
Self-Regulation of Judicial Misconduct Could Be Mis-Regulation, 89 Mich.
L.R. 609 (1990) (available on-line from http://www.law.northwestern.edu)
that judges don't "cover" for other judges?
I told you that how long ago, you loser?
On the one hand, you admit that judges cover for other judges, and on
the other, you still claim that my constitutional rights have not been
violated? (You can't ride both horses there without violating the Law
of Non-Contradiction.)
Every argument you throw up here eventually bites you in the ass. And with
an ass like yours ...
Innuendo.
Do I *have* to repost that picture? :)
because he apparently threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a
cliff.
He did NOT throw his daughter off any cliff.
District Attorney Craig Hum begs to differ
And he will have to prove his case in court. And he won't be able to.
Whether he gets a conviction or not is at this point beside the
point. The fact remains that they have good reason to put that piece of
garbage behind bars.
and, based on what we have seen here, it is patently obvious that he has
the stronger argument
What "argument"? I keep telling you, you can wipe your hind end with their
"expert's" report.
And we all know what a compulsive liar you are.
[Ken's nonsense elided]
It's *your* nonsense, Teddi. You're the one stupid enough to advance
the theory that little Lauren got a running start and took a flying leap
off that cliff, for instance. [reattached]
Everyone who knows him knows how happy and proud he was to be a father,
and how much he loved his little daughte
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[continued from last post]
But L.A. District Attorney Craig Hum has *GOOD REASON* to believe that
Cameron Brown threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff.
He doesn't have any more reason to think so than you do.
I have very good reason to believe that he did
And this "very good reason" is?
"Probably"?
But he hired the "expert" to manufacture the "evidence".
Forensic experts don't manufacture evidence; they *interpret* it.
I'm just going on the facts you've alleged, which are more than enough to
convict Cam.
But I haven't given you any relevant facts.
Sure, you have.
And your protestations regarding his purported innocence
His ACTUAL innocence.
We'll never actually know that, Ted.
We already do.
The only way you could *KNOW* that is if you were the one who threw
her off the cliff. I will, therefore, accept your confession.... :)
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090709020005080608030807
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[snip -- rest dealt with earlier]
I'm just going on the facts you've alleged, which are more than enough to
convict Cam.
But I haven't given you any relevant facts.
Sure you have! You've told us what the State is alleging, and as
I've told you over and over again, if they know where Lauren landed, and
the only other possible "explanation" for that is that she got up a
running start and took a flying leap, the only remaining question is
"Regular or Unleaded?"
And your protestations regarding his purported innocence
His ACTUAL innocence.
We already do.
Why? Because *you* were Lauren's murderer? If you weren't there,
you cannot by definition KNOW.
All a court can say is that the State proved or didn't prove his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, which is quite another matter.
All the evidence the state has is that which they paid to have manufactured.
How many times do I have to tell you that the State's forensic expert
can't "manufacture" *ANY* evidence? It's their interpretation against
yours, and if they have reason to believe that there was a murder, that
is enough to arrest Cam. And, as you've seen in the Kobe case, there's
not *THAT* much more required to bind the case over for trial.
Either way, I could care less.
and concomitant vague charges of prosecutorial misconduct
Yeah, well, I suppose they have to try to make themselves look good
somehow.
If that is their motivation, then we can have even more confidence in Craig
Hum's work, as the best way to make yourself look good is to do a good job.
Yeah, they did a real good job on the O.J. case, now didn't they?
Was Hum involved in the O.J. trial? Seems to me that Clark and
Darden @$#*ed that one up all by their lonesome. And if you want to
restore a tarnished reputation, you do a good job. Like Craig Hum....
Professional police-work, coupled with careful examination of high-profile
cases and solid prosecution, will get it done.
As in the Ramparts case?
After Ramparts and O.J., they need professional prosecutors like
Craig Hum to do first-class prosecutions, right? :)
On what basis?
Your own statements. Of course, I've read between the lines where it
has been required, but it's pretty obvious that the case isn't anywhere
near as wafer-thin as you've claimed.
On what you have read in the newspapers? Guess what, bucko:
you're reading his own press releases, virtually verbatim. He big-notes
himself to the papers, they print it virtually unedited,
Sounds like every D.A. I know. Including candidates I support here
in CO. :)
and you think that he's a great guy.
I don't have any opinion of him one way or another. I'm just giving
you a taste of your own medicine. Can't imagine why you wouldn't like
it (Matt. 7:12).... :)
What's wrong with this picture?
Your personal vendetta against me, which you absolutely refuse to let
go of. Grow up, instead of simply growing old!
and we should all take his charges very seriously.
Well, here we are again. Because Cameron is in jail, he must be guilty of
what he has been charged with. And because he's guilty, he's in jail.
I haven't said that he is guilty but rather, that they have probable
cause to keep him locked up.
After all, they couldn't get O.J., so now they go after someone who
doesn't have nearly as much money, never mind that he's actually quite
obviously innocent of the charge of murder.
He is to someone from my vantage point. You didn't see what he went through
after the death of his daughter.
[Hurrah for HOLLYWOOD!!!! I have little doubt that it must have been
an Oscar-caliber performance.] Proves exactly nothing.
No one here has agreed with you,
And no one here has challenged me, except you.
Including Chas, Jason Steiner, and a few others. Not a soul has come
to your aid on this NG. Not one! They've been agreeing with me -- and
agreeing that you have been prosecuting a personal vendetta against me.
Because everyone else has the
good sense to keep their mouths shut until this thing shakes out. And who
was it that was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a
psychological examination?
Harassment. The State, attempting to *manufacture* evidence. [If
you say they'd never *DO* that, you condemn Cam.] I was damned if I did
and damned if I didn't ... and if I didn't, I'd have a civil rights
lawsuit, potentially worth millions. If I did, I was walking straight
into their trap. Mine was the only logical move. :)
although I condition my conclusion on the fact that you may not be able to
present relevant facts competently.
More innuendo. As a trained lawyer, you SHOULD know why I have to keep my
mouth shut.
Why do you have to keep your mouth shut, if you have an open-and-shut
case? If Cam is so obviously innocent, you don't have to play cards so
close to the vest. But if it is a close call, you've already said more
than you should have.
If so, then you are obviously lying when you say the above. If
not, well then, let's give the Colorado Bar Examiners their due.
Doesn't work that way. There are times when you try your case in the
press, at least in part. Watch the masters at work. You can get a lot
of mileage out of it....
Based on what you have shown us so far, he's in for the fight of his life,
and could actually lose.
That's always true, if you're being judged by 12 people too dumb to be able
to get out of jury duty.
Justice. Cam will *obviously* be judged by a jury of his peers....
Still, it is nice for you to concede that we only get as much justice as we
can afford in America, and that I haven't gotten justice because I can't
spend a million dollars to get it. :)
I don't know that you HAVEN'T gotten justice. (Moreover, if you DID have a
million bucks to spend on your case, perhaps it would be the citizens of the
fair state of Colorado who wouldn't be getting justice.)
And if D.A. Craig Hum hadn't spent the extra money to get a
top-drawer expert witness, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that
a depraved child-murderer would be walking the streets today. [every
piece of mud you hurl comes back to you....]
have simply been nothing short of comical (see attach
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010206010307030505020104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[snip]
Let's talk about the string of unmitigated disasters that pass for your
"romantic relationships," shall we?
If you want. What do you know about this?
Let's start with your confessed adulterous liaison with the married
businesswoman. :) And then, the relationship you found to be less than
satisfying. The one that apparently soured you on women -- causing you
to despise them so. What *did* she do to you? Leave you for another woman?
Or, your insane rants regarding homosexuality,
I have merely pointed out that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. How is
that a "rant"?
Is it a dysfunction, or an orientation? I don't know, even though I
will never understand what a man sees in another man. And though I am
persuaded that you're a closet homosexual, or at least have homosexual
tendencies -- trust me, we *NORMAL* heteros don't focus on it like YOU
do! -- I don't believe you are qualified to offer an informed opinion.
which reveal your sexual dysfuntionalism.
What "sexual dysfunctionalism"? I have a healthy libido (which I am able to
restrain to a greater extent than, say, Bill Clinton).
Really? At least, Bill Clinton got to KNOW that woman before he used
her vagina as a humidor! You, on the other hand, admitted to having a
one night stand with a woman you didn't even know. At least, "Blowjob
Bill" was able to hold off....
Or your extreme bigotry.
What "bigotry"? I'm no bigot.
Your words speak volumes.
What "unbalanced religious views"? You're the one with those.
You're the brain-dead idiot who hears voices....
Now, let's focus on your dysfunctionalism. Why is it that you can't
get married? What burdens of marriage are so heavy that you can't bear
them? And finally, is your mother a scag or a 'ho?
--------------010206010307030505020104
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedracistnew.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedracistnew.txt"
Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hind | | |
