|
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
forevernitefan wrote:
Kaldis isn't defending any "child killer".
Kaldis isn't defending just *ANY* "child-killer." He is defending
his brother-in-law Cameron Bronw, who stands indicted for the alleged
murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter by causing her to fall
over a hundred feet to her death off a Palos Verdes cliff.
Ted claims that he is "obviously innocent," and that his civil rights
are being violated, but he has yet to present any credible evidence to
resonably support his claims and as such, by his own public admission,
we are obliged to dismiss them as spurious.
And the one who is "anointed" is the one who wears the badge.
IOW, L.A.S.D. detectives, Christians who are doing the Lord's work by
bringing an alleged child-killer to justice.
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
forevernitefan wrote:
No, not for "no reason". Just not for the one that has been stated. He just
happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
You made the claim. Prove it.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
And the one who is "anointed" is the one who wears the badge.
IOW, L.A.S.D. detectives, Christians who are doing the Lord's work by
bringing an alleged child-killer to justice.
I didn't say "Christians". Rom. 13:1-4 indicates that the civil authorities
who administer justice on behalf of the state are "ordained" of God to do so.
And this is true regardless of whether they happen to be Christians or not.
And if they misuse their position of power to persecute and oppress, they
risk God's wrath.
In this case, they know what they did (unlike you). And God's Word is TRUE!
God is NOT mocked. Let's just see how this case ultimately plays itself out.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
And the one who is "anointed" is the one who wears the badge.
I didn't say "Christians". Rom. 13:1-4 indicates that the civil
authorities
who administer justice on behalf of the state are "ordained" of God to do
so.
And this is true regardless of whether they happen to be Christians or
not.
And if they misuse their position of power to persecute and oppress, they
risk God's wrath.
In this case, they know what they did (unlike you). And God's Word is
TRUE!
God is NOT mocked. Let's just see how this case ultimately plays itself
out.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Would that you would shut up until then....
KL
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
And the one who is "anointed" is the one who wears the badge.
I didn't say "Christians". Rom. 13:1-4 indicates that the civil authorities
who administer justice on behalf of the state are "ordained" of God to do so.
And this is true regardless of whether they happen to be Christians or not.
And if they misuse their position of power to persecute and oppress, they
risk God's wrath.
In this case, they know what they did (unlike you). And God's Word is TRUE!
God is NOT mocked. Let's just see how this case ultimately plays itself out.
All you have to do is follow Geragos' sound advice, and shut the @$#*
up -- when you went away, this discussion went away. :)
|
| |
| |
KL wrote:
Would that you would shut up until then....
Hey! That would require a miracle.... ;)
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote
All you have to do is follow Geragos' sound advice, and shut the @$#* up --
when you went away, this discussion went away. :)
Geragos, now ???? LOL !!!!!!!!!!!
------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
SolarChase wrote:
Ken Smith wrote
Geragos, now ???? LOL !!!!!!!!!!!
I was honestly shocked by Ted's admission that *Geragos* told him to
shut his pie-hole. It was absolutely the right decision, of course, but
Ted left the distinct impression that Geragos was down with what he was
doing. Geragos has the bombastic style common among top-drawer criminal
defense attorneys -- but if you want to use the media to your advantage,
you can't have loose cannons like Ted on deck. :)
With Doug Gilliland, you were never sure where the truth stopped and
the bull#@($ began. With Ted, you're never sure whether the truth has
ever even started. :)
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
forevernitefan wrote:
Kaldis, in the case of a suspicious death, such as this one concerning a
child, suspicion naturally centers on the other person who was with the
deceased just before the incident.
That's fair. I have no complaints about that.
And, given my experience with this case, I just have to wonder how many of
those might actually be MANUFACTURED cases, as this one is.
And it is incumbent upon you to prove that claim. Unless and until
you can do so, your claim and a quarter won't buy you a latte at your
local Starbucks.
As for this Cam being "anointed" crap
I never said that Cam was "anointed", I said the COPS are "anointed" --
because they are about the business of providing JUSTICE.
He IS innocent. It doesn't make sense on ANY level that he would kill his
own daughter.
And since when did *humans* become infallibly rational creatures?
they guy fornicated without the beneift of marriage, which I hear your
Bible speaks out against
Why don't you read it and see?
We have -- which is why we find your defense of him as a responsible
man of God who must certainly be innocent of the heinous crime alleged
patently ludicrous. If you stick strictly to the facts, Cam's case is
not a slam-dunk.
( But you OC don't).
Who says I don't?
Guess what: we're ALL sinners.
Wasn't Jimmy Swaggart a Pentecostal?
I know. He didn't do it. There's no way. Even the cops and prosecutors
don't have any evidence (except that which they manufactured).
The undisputed facts and circumstances are enough evidence to enable
one to come to conclude that Cam is guilty. That you refuse to hear it
on account of personal bias and need is not our concern.
But then you have one set of standards for yourself and an entiely
different set for everyone else.
As do you.
So what? In this case, you maintain that Cam could not have murdered
Lauren, because he doesn't have a motive -- but by that logic, the cops
could not be prosecuting Cam without cause, BECAUSE *THEY* DON'T HAVE A
MOTIVE!!! Now, it seems to me that that is a double-standard, and even
if Moe *did* employ double-standards, it in no way absolves YOU of the
charge.
You claim two cops beat Cam with a rubber hose,
"AS IT WERE". I was saying that figuratively. They did browbeat him, but
not literally with a hose.
Standard operating procedure. Is this a problem?
yet fail to name specific names.
L.A.S.D. detectives Danny Smith ("bad" cop) and Jeff Leslie ("good" cop).
As I suspected, they were playing a game of "good cop, bad cop." We
can't reasonably infer anything particularly sinister from THAT.
So, are these are the gentlemen who allegedly arranged for Cam to be
'hit' by a lifer in the L.A. County slammer? How about naming names on
that charge, while you're at it?
You excuse away Cam's unemotionalness but forget that this is not an
everyday situation. Cam, if he loved the girl as you claim would be
EMOTIONAL, even if its only silent tears streaming down his face.
You're grasping at straws. There is NOTHING in this case that suggests he
resented having a child. In fact, the body of evidence says exactly the
OPPOSITE! There is something else at work here, something that is not
immediately apparent, and something which the casual observer would be
completely oblivious to.
We'll believe it when you *prove* it -- assuming that you *can*. For
the most part, you have been whining about things that really ought not
to be whined about, which makes us infer that this "H-bomb" of yours is
more like Preparation H.
Your claim of him being normally unemotional, of hiding his feelings,
contradicts your claim he is anointed of your god.
I never claimed that he was anointed.
Or at least those who claim to be ...
That's strange. Because I've never lied.
In a pig's eye. (And yes, you resemble that critter --
http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg).
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
In this case, you maintain that Cam could not have murdered Lauren, because
he doesn't have a motive -- but by that logic, the cops could not be
prosecuting Cam without cause, BECAUSE *THEY* DON'T HAVE A MOTIVE!!!
Not any that you would know about, at least.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
|
