Ken Smith wrote:
Not any that you would know about, at least.

I see that on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:23:16 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So tell us, what IS the motivation? I can't think of any reason
for anyone in the LASD and/or the DA's office to conspire with anyone
to frame Cameron. If you *know* why, please enlighten me, if no one
else.

I can't even come up with a scenario in which it would make sense for
anyone to "frame" a complete nobody like Cam Brown.

Ken Smith wrote:
It's not something that's readily apparent.

And you have virtually NOTHING to work with.

It took me months of investigation before I finally figured it
all out. And one day, I should be able to tell you what it is.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
It's not something that is even readily conceivable.

I can't even *imagine* any scenario where they would have anything to gain.

Doc Branion treated Black Panthers, so of course, the authorities wanted to
nail him at any and all cost. I'm a whistleblower and general gadfly,
thereby presenting a danger to the Colorado bar.

But Cam's just a friggin' STEVEDORE!

I'm expecting you to make your case within a week, and not one moment
later.

After all, once Geragos pulls this putative 'rabbit' out of his hat at next
week's hearing, it won't be a secret any more.

I'm not the *slightest* bit averse to the concept, Ted -- it is just
that you are definitely light in the "credible evidence" department.

Ken Smith wrote:
I'll grant you that.
And you have virtually NOTHING to work with.
That's certainly not an unreasonable position.

Personally, I think that you might be overinflating your own importance.

But I readily concede that there are many details about your situation that I am
not privy to.

It took me months of investigation before I finally figured it all out.
And one day, I should be able to tell you what it is.
I'm not quite certain if I'll be able to "go public" by then.

I'm not sure just what statements he will have for the press by then -- if
any. If he doesn't have anything to say just yet, it's unlikely that I will,
either.

Sh*t happens.

So what are your plans in 8 days from now?

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ted, please keep in mind that my opinion here is informed by what ienj
is telling you. For Cam's indictment to be thrown out, the malfeasance
would have to be so overwhelming AND his innocence so obvious that there
is no way the State's actions can be countenanced. And frankly, there's
that little problem of evidence that even you admit is way too ambiguous
to exonerate Cam.
Doc Branion treated Black Panthers, so of course, the authorities
wanted to
nail him at any and all cost. I'm a whistleblower and general gadfly,
thereby presenting a danger to the Colorado bar.
The issue here is systemic corruption on a Brobdignagian scale -- but
as you even refuse to acknowledge that it is improper for a trial court
to NOT follow black-letter law right on-point, I may as well be talking
to a wall. You can't be persuaded in this matter because YOU DON'T WANT
TO BE PERSUADED. It's really that simple.
The stark reality is that bureaucracies *always* close ranks when they
have been caught out. Trying to beat them is always a crapshoot, but not
fighting back is always a loss.
When I say "YMMV at trial," I *MEAN* it. I don't think you've made a
very good case, and in many instances, you've actually *hurt* Cam's case
with some of the positions you've taken. Sure, those tendentious rules
of law might get you where you want to go in *my* case, but when applied
on a consistent basis, they put Cam in the gas chamber.
Your hypocrisy has hurt your standing with everyone, including natural
allies like Chas and Kent. My guess is that you've even lost Solar, who
(as I recall) remained neutral while folks like Jason were disemboweling
you, even though s/he'd seen your act with respect to my case. S/he has
been hammering you for your hypocrisy and the sheer unreasonableness of
your defense, and has managed to move me quite a bit closer to believing
that Cam must be guilty.
But Cam's just a friggin' STEVEDORE!
Then, I would suggest that you go underground until you do. It's not
like this was the main topic of conversation around here while you were
gone. :)

If I were you, I'd STFU, and not try to put me in a position where I
am inclined to bring the matter up. The less you say here, the less a
Craig Hum would learn. And if this case matters to him as much as you
say it does, he's watching....
I'm not the *slightest* bit averse to the concept, Ted -- it is just
that you are definitely light in the "credible evidence" department.
Which is precisely why we should not feel sorry for Cam, according to
your line of reasoning. After all, it's not like Cam's problems aren't
exclusively of *his own* making. "Gee, Daddy! Mr. Tiger has such SHARP
teeth! Can I see, Daddy? Pleeeeeeease?" That's pure Al MacInnes from
the blue-line, or Brett Lee on the cricket pitch. You're caught out,
and you never knew what hit you. :)
When I think of Cam's "poor life-choices," I think of Michael Jackson,
dangling his kid over that balcony. At absolute best, Cam is a Michael
Jackson-class flake, who probably ought to be sterilized....
They are my own. You are no longer my friend, and I have no need to
divulge any aspect of my life to you.

">It's not something that's readily apparent. And you have virtually NOTHING
to work with. It took me months of investigation before I finally figured it
all out. And one day, I should be able to tell you what it is."
Wellllllll, seeing we have gotten past one hearing and are almost ready for the
next hearing, is THIS day of grand revelation any closer ??