In yesterday's (25 March '08) hearing in the Cameron Brown case, held
before Judge Mark S. Arnold in Torrance California, Cameron's
attorney, Pat Harris of the Geragos & Geragos law firm, insisted that
the case proceed directly to trial. Harris declared that he was
ready to proceed, that he would not agree to any continuances.
Harris said that Cameron Brown would not be waiving his right to a
speedy trial, and requested that the court schedule a start date for
a trial.
The judge noted that both he and prosecutor Craig Hum would be on
vacation for the month of April, and that he has capital case
scheduled for when he returns that he expects to last for about 2 1/2
months, and so he would be unable to schedule a trial start date
earlier than mid-july at the earliest, and more likely sometime in
August. Harris said that this was unacceptable, and that he would
move for a "1050" hearing -- in other words, a hearing regarding
continuances according to California law as specified in Penal Code
1050.
Under P.C. 1050, capital cases take precedence over non-capital
criminal cases. It also spells out some requirements regarding
continuances. Accordingly, the judge said that he had no alternative
than to send the case back downtown to be rescheduled to be heard
before another judge.

So after 4 years Cameron has finally tired of his prison cell ?

Better lube up that Preparation H class exculpatory evidence you've been
... ahem ... sitting on Teddy, Cameron's gonna need it.

"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
He tired of it LONG ago, trust me.

Are you joking? Hum's the one that's squirming over this move.

BTW [completely unrelated], I just heard over the radio that my old
buddy Richie Sambora just got busted last night down in Laguna. And
I didn't even know he was in Orange County. (Anyway, I haven't seen
him [in person, face- to-face] in about 6 1/2 years.)

"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
He tired of it LONG ago, trust me.

In article <47EAB3E3.24AEADB2@avenuecable.com>,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@avenuecable.com> wrote:
Seems to me he likely pulled this stunt solely because he knew the judge
and prosecutor were going on vacation, and thus the trial really
couldn't start anytime soon. So they get more time to delay/prepare
without having to explicitly state as much.

Seems to me he likely pulled this stunt solely because he knew the judge
and prosecutor were going on vacation, and thus the trial really couldn't
start anytime soon. So they get more time to delay/prepare without having
to explicitly state as much.

Larry wrote:

Or the Prosecutor cancels his vacation, tries and convicts Cameron of
murder, then takes a longer vacation to celebrate ...

"Reality_Check" wrote:
Seems to me he likely pulled this stunt solely because he knew the
judge and prosecutor were going on vacation, and thus the trial
really couldn't start anytime soon. So they get more time to
delay/prepare without having to explicitly state as much.
With regard to scheduling, it DOESN'T MATTER if the prosecutor
cancels his vacation or not. The problem is with the CURRENT court
calendar. Even if the judge were to cancel his vacation as well,
this trial would NOT be able to proceed in his court because he
ALREADY has a capital case scheduled to begin in May. And under
California law (P.C. 1050), capital cases take precendence over
non-capital cases.
The ONLY course of action this judge had was to send the case back to
be rescheduled with another court. And the scheduling court requires
30 days before they will hold a hearing to have the case rescheduled.

Larry wrote:
No, Larry. Virtually ALL of the delays in this case have been
orchestrated by the PROSECUTION.

Cameron's attorney was ready to go,
and he MEANT it. Even in this instance, the PROSECUTOR would have
wished to delay the trial yet again -- but this time, he had no
legally justifiable reason upon which to ask for a continuance.

His attorney is prepared to move forward TODAY. The only thing that
is delaying the trial right now is simply the matter of getting it
scheduled.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Why do you lie?

Cameron agreed, affirmatively, to EACH AND EVERY one of them.

All he had to do was say "no"

... like Lauren yelled in horror as Cameron threw her off that rocky cliff.

Then Trial it is!

You don't really think they're going to let Cameron go for lack of
scheduling, do you Ted?

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
I predict Cameron's game of checkers will ultimately fail in getting him
sprung on speedy trial issues,

and that he'll be faced with a very real trial

for killing his daughter by tossing her off a cliff like so much unwanted
baggage.

And don't forget, the last Jury was UNANIMOUS in his guilt, they just
couldn't agree on the severity of his guilt.

"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
That's NOT the issue, here, doofus. We AREN'T expecting that the case will
be dismissed at this point, but rather RESCHEDULED. Before another judge.

Maybe. But then, maybe not. Once a new judge gets a look at the fictitious
case that has been fabricated against Cameron, who knows what he's going to
do?

Except that this NEVER HAPPENED.

You moron. You forget that I was THERE to witness all the manipulations.
And it is unlikely that the prosecutor will be able to get away with such
shenanigans before a different judge.

Larry wrote:
No, Larry. Virtually ALL of the delays in this case have been orchestrated
by the PROSECUTION. Cameron's attorney was ready to go, and he MEANT it.

Even in this instance, the PROSECUTOR would have wished to delay the trial
yet again -- but this time, he had no legally justifiable reason upon which
to ask for a continuance.
His attorney is prepared to move forward TODAY. The only thing that is
delaying the trial right now is simply the matter of getting it scheduled.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Why do you lie?

Cameron agreed, affirmatively, to EACH AND EVERY one of them.
All he had to do was say "no" ... like Lauren yelled in horror as
Cameron threw her off that rocky cliff.

"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
Seems to me he likely pulled this stunt solely because he knew the judge
and prosecutor were going on vacation, and thus the trial really couldn't
start anytime soon. So they get more time to delay/prepare without
having to explicitly state as much.
No, Larry. Virtually ALL of the delays in this case have been
orchestrated by the PROSECUTION.
I don't. (Unlike you.)

You're a moron.

Cameron's lawyer is unable to proceed because the PROSECUTOR
has neglected turn over all relevant "evidence"

-- and yet Cameron should
FORCE the issue forward even though his attorney isn't fully prepared?

And
somehow the prosecutor ISN'T responsible for such a delay under these
circumstances? Get real.

You lowlife.

Indeed. But not in Torrance, before Judge Arnold.

Who knows? Given that the whole arrest, indictment, and incarceration is
based upon MANUFACTURED "evidence", they just might.

"Reality_Check" wrote:
Seems to me he likely pulled this stunt solely because he knew the judge
and prosecutor were going on vacation, and thus the trial really couldn't
start anytime soon. So they get more time to delay/prepare without having
to explicitly state as much.
With regard to scheduling, it DOESN'T MATTER if the prosecutor cancels his
vacation or not. The problem is with the CURRENT court calendar. Even if
the judge were to cancel his vacation as well, this trial would NOT be able
to proceed in his court because he ALREADY has a capital case scheduled to
begin in May. And under California law (P.C. 1050), capital cases take
precendence over non-capital cases.
The ONLY course of action this judge had was to send the case back to be
rescheduled with another court. And the scheduling court requires 30 days
before they will hold a hearing to have the case rescheduled.

In article <47EAB3E3.24AEADB2@avenuecable.com>,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@avenuecable.com> wrote:
Seems to me he likely pulled this stunt solely because he knew the judge
and prosecutor were going on vacation, and thus the trial really
couldn't start anytime soon. So they get more time to delay/prepare
without having to explicitly state as much.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Not necessarily. Cal. Penal Code Sec. 1050 is DIRECTORY in nature and
thereunder, Judge Arnold could legitimately decide to start the trial in
July.

As the hearing is to be held on Friday, Hum could easily print up your
comments, and assert that this is really a blatant attempt to have the
judge removed from the case.

Try the case.

A grand jury has indicted him,

and the first jury had deadlocked 10-2 in favor of second-degree murder,

with no one thinking he was innocent outside of the Kook Kaldis Klan.

Says a compulsive liar.

Sure, he will.

After all, you don't have enough knowledge to even begin to discern between
permissible and impermissible trial tactics.

I can understand why the prosecutor wanted a delay, given that he was going
on vacation and the defense knew it.

Larry wrote:
No, Larry. Virtually ALL of the delays in this case have been orchestrated
by the PROSECUTION. Cameron's attorney was ready to go, and he MEANT it.

Even in this instance, the PROSECUTOR would have wished to delay the trial
yet again -- but this time, he had no legally justifiable reason upon which
to ask for a continuance.
His attorney is prepared to move forward TODAY. The only thing that is
delaying the trial right now is simply the matter of getting it scheduled.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
You do.

Judge Arnold just didn't have the courtesy to clutter up his trial
calendar.

In Ted's "mind," that qualifies as prosecution delay,

as he sees them as being on the same team.

You'd need to take "smart pills" for years just to get to that level.

Piffle. A simple motion cures that.

They've already had one trial. How can he not be prepared?!?

No, the prosecutor isn't.

If information was being withheld, a simple motion would have cured the
problem.

Which was the whole point of this two-year delay.

Problem is, Judge Arnold actually called a reasonably fair game.

One note of caution: Rule 1050 is directory. If Judge Arnold reads the
statute, he'll figure it out. And if he wants to hear the case, he can
hear it. Judicial efficiency, and all that.

That's not a given.

That's not even a plausible possibility.

Ken Smith wrote:
Do NOT!
Judge Arnold does not "own" this case. California law dictates that the
case
should move along expeditiously. But Judge Arnold could not accommodate
the
case. So it has to be reassigned.
I never said any such thing, you mendacious prevaricator. Quit putting
words
in my mouth.
I've never said this either, but (at least with Judge Arnold) it often
seems
as if this is the case.
Cameron agreed, affirmatively, to EACH AND EVERY one of them.
All he had to do was say "no"
You're a moron.
You've been unable to get past the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board. Those
who
live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Cameron's lawyer is unable to proceed because the PROSECUTOR has
neglected
turn over all relevant "evidence"
And in the meanwhile delays the trial.
-- and yet Cameron should FORCE the issue forward even though his
attorney
isn't fully prepared?
Sometimes there are other issues at play.
And somehow the prosecutor ISN'T responsible for such a delay under
these
circumstances? Get real.
Yes, the prosecutor is. Get real.
While it further delays the trial.
[Personal invective by Ken Smith elided]
Cameron's attorney was ready to go, and he MEANT it. Even in this
instance, the PROSECUTOR would have wished to delay the trial yet
again
-- but this time, he had no legally justifiable reason upon which to
ask
for a continuance.
Then Trial it is!
Indeed. But not in Torrance, before Judge Arnold.
No it wasn't.
What BOLLOCKS! Had there been a verdict, Geragos said the appeal would
have
set a record for the quickest reversal ever.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
I of course have no way of knowing what the defense lawyer was thinking,
but it seems coincidental that for years and years and years he waived his
right to a speedy trial, then invokes it for the very first time (AFAIK)
right before the judge and prosecutor are going on pre-scheduled vacations.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
ROTFLMAO!

He also said the Scott Peterson was "stone cold innocent" !

Ken Smith wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about. Judge Arnold is no longer in the
picture.

On what basis? This hearing will be held DOWNTOWN. It appears as if the
case has ALREADY been moved out of Judge Arnold's court. Judge Arnold simply
could not accommodate the case on his calendar.

Perhaps. But it will be a waste of the court's time.

On fabricated evidence.

And the basis of NUMEROUS errors by the trial judge.

Who are in a position to know best. Cut it out, Ken. Don't bulls**t me, you
know VERY well how bogus this case is. You have examined this website:
<http://www.freecambrown.org/>
meticulously. But you're apparently not honest enough to be forthright about
all the shenanigans by the prosecution that you found documented there.

Except that this NEVER HAPPENED.
You mendacious prevaricator.

Oh, I don't think so.

And you don't have enough knowledge about what's REALLY going on behind the
scenes here.

Ken Smith wrote:
And the problem [for the prosecutor] is that California P.C. 1050(e)
EXPLICITLY precludes granting a continuance on this basis.

Larry wrote:
The vacations are of no real consequence. The fly in the ointment here is
that there is a capital case already scheduled for May. And according to
California law (P.C. 1050), a capital case CANNOT be rescheduled simply to
accommodate a non-capital case.

"Reality Check" wrote:
Problem is, Judge Arnold actually called a reasonably fair game.
What BOLLOCKS! Had there been a verdict, Geragos said the appeal would
have set a record for the quickest reversal ever.
Over what? [Those in insane asylums have been known to engage in such
behaviour, btw.]
I can't speak for Peterson, but in this case, it is EASILY demonstrable. For
example, the prosecution seems to have engaged in "expert-shopping". But the
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993)
[I believe that's the right case here], that "expert-shopping" constitutes
fabrication of evidence.

Even apart from that, the "expert" "evidence" in
this case can EASILY be shown to have been fabricated.

<http://www.freecambrown.org>
And it doesn't even properly qualify as "evidence", under the Kelly-Frye test
(which prevails in California Courts) -- and should have been DISALLOWED by
the judge.

And this is barely even the tip of the iceberg.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
They could reassign it to him if they wanted to.

They could reassign it to him if they wanted to. Judicial efficiency.

Hardly. It's a close case but certainly,

one that should be tried.

There was more than enough for an indictment, and it is a pass-fail exam.

You wouldn't know a reversible error if it kicked you in the rear.

You got your "law degree" from the bottom of a bottle of Wild Turkey, and
wouldn't know a reversible error if it kicked you in the rear.

So, are you drinking these days, or not? That seems to change every time
you waddle past a bar.

As Larry, I, and others have explained to you ad nauseum, most of what you
have been whining about is perfectly normal procedure.

Cam got a fair (not perfect, but fair) trial in front of Judge Arnold -- by
way of example, he could have threatened to hold the jury over until Labor
Day if he wanted to, and they would have returned a guilty verdict

-- and a change of venue won't affect the case all that much.