Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Once Upon a News Group - Ted Kaldis's Preposterous Pomposity

It would be difficult to list all the allegations, predictions and theories Ted Kaldis posted on Usenet the past two years that proved to be erroneous or simply fiction, but here are a few of the most memorable – mainly because they were repeated ad nauseum ad infititum and resembled an endless loop of insipid muzak:

• The case was a “turkey” and would never go to trial.
• The case would be dismissed and Geragos’s 995 motion would be accepted.
• The preliminary hearing would exonerate Brown; then when the prosecutors called a grand jury, Kaldis predicted that the grand jury would not hand down an indictment.
• That Cameron Brown was railroaded by an aggressive DDA who had ambitions to run for public office.
• That the Palos Verdes Conservancy had organized a conspiracy to charge Brown with murder to protect their fundraising efforts and/or liability issues.
• That the county was liable for Lauren’s death, even though the statute of limitations for a lawsuit had run out.
• That Sarah Marer’s acceptance of an insurance settlement for Lauren’s wrongful death would disqualify the matter for criminal prosecution.
• That Brown’s trial was a violation of his Constitutional rights and that his civil rights were ignored because he was refused bail or that this was some sort of “double jeopardy.”
• That main players in the trial: Sarah Marer, Jeff Leslie, and other law enforcement officers had perjured themselves on the witness stand.
• That Sarah Marer was somehow able to enlist the LA Sheriffs, the DA, and subsequently a reputable jurist in her vendetta against Brown.
• That the DA has nothing better to do than try innocent people for murder; even ordinary, unglamorous baggage handlers.
• That his twin sister Patty got all the “cute genes.”
• That Hayes was a hack and would be disredited at trial. Also, that Hayes had some unseemly events in his history that would embarass him on the stand.
• That the defense never delayed the trial; all the delays were due to the prosecution.
• That Brown would be acquitted at the trial.
• That Mark Geragos was a great lawyer. (ROFL...sorry.)
• That the prosecution shopped for an expert and found a "paid wh*re." (His words, not mine.)
• That there would be “H-bomb-class” revelations at the trial.
• That we who were participating in the discussion didn’t know anything about anything and that he knew everything and it would all be clear once the trial took place; if the trial ever took place, of course.
• That Brown was a “loving father” who “doted” on his daughter and was “overly permissive” because of his affection.
• That the defense would have a "Perry Mason" moment with a surprise witness whose testimony would exonerate Brown.
• That the Browns were fit to take custody of Lauren from her mother, since Sarah was unfit, an illegal immigrant, and that the Browns lived in a tony neighborhood and had more money.
• That the Browns were in excellent financial shape and could buy and sell us all into slavery tomorrow.

Feel free to add those you recall that I missed.

126 comments:

Ronni said...

Not directly relevant, but I was always amused at his claims to Christianity.

CountryGirl said...

That there was a quid pro quo between RPV and Sarah for the memorial for Lauren to avoid a lawsuit.

Then I found the information that Sarah paid for Lauren's memorial and RPV donated about $300 labor and a rock.

CountryGirl said...

Ted's quote:

So Lois Larue is paying for her monument, but we see no mention of who
is paying for the monument to Lauren. And from all appearances, it
seems to be the city. Might this then be a quid pro quo?


As for Cameron Brown, he was kept at bay by treating him as a criminal,
a suspect of murder in Lauren's death -- even though there wasn't ANY
substantive evidence to indicate that there was any foul play involved,
and despite overwhelming evidence that he was nothing but a loving
father who had suffered a very grievous and tragic loss.

CountryGirl said...

No Ted. Sarah Key-Marer paid for Lauren's plaque:


FISCAL IMPACT


At the February 20th meeting, Ms. Key-Marer indicated that she would be
willing to pay for the cost of the plaque. This is consistent with the
two other memorial plaques that have been placed in the City. Both the
Bill Britton memorial at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center and the
Perry Ehlig memorial at Point Vicente were paid for by the family or
through private donations. Staff recommends that the City contribute
the rock (available through a recent public works project) and the
labor to install the monument at Inspiration Point, which would not
exceed $300.


Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager


Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager
~~~~~

Quid pro quo of $300 and a rock. Sure.


http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2001_Agendas/Meeti...

googleid said...

"Ronni said...
Not directly relevant, but I was always amused at his claims to Christianity."

What Ronni said, big ditto.

Wayne Delia said...

"Ah, Mr. Kaldis. You have a nasty habit of... surviving." (paraphrasing a line from a James Bond movie)

There's a simple and common theme running through most of his posting history, which I pointed out several months ago. The bottom line is that he has an urgent need to create certain impressions, usually not true, but necessary to support whatever agenda he's pushing at the time. It stung him badly when I brought that up in the alt.fan.bob-larson newsgroup, and he took to overusing his '[...]' icon to indicate material he snipped without responding to. He also claimed to have killfiled me, but he accidentally directly responded to a post of mine 36 hours later - his excuse was that he did it from a different computer, but the IP addresses were... well, you can probably guess the result.

In any case, as I said, Ted needs to create impressions which are usually not true, to support whatever agenda he's pushing at the time. There are many examples, but just a few will do for illustration. When the need arose for Ted to appear as a hard-core Jethro Tull fan, living the drug-culture lifestyle of someone who was intimately familiar with the 1970's progressive rock band, he wrote his famous smoking-gun post:

What do you know of Tull? I saw the Brick Tour concert from just about perfect seats, about 7 rows back from the stage and just slightly right of center, at Bayfront Center in St. Petersburg FL, on 3 November, 1972. (The opening act was Gentle Giant, before anyone had ever heard of them.) The night was quite magical, passing around doobs, and then a little electric beer to wash it all down.

That rhetoric was very useful to create an impression of a tough, swaggering, ultra-cool, plugged-in, streetwise dude who had a level of experience deeper than someone he was trying to put down at the time. Enter Ken Smith, who correctly pointed out that the effects of LSD (the active hallucinogenic in "electric beer") were virtually permanent in terms of acid flashbacks later on in life, which pretty much impeached any arbitrary post made by Ted. At that time, Ted was knee-deep in trying to create an impression of himself as a pious Christian, so the prior impression of the drug culture hippie was no longer useful. He backpedalled harder than Lance Armstrong by denying he ever took any LSD, that he was just "having us on," that he only observed and described the concert, but did not partake of any drugs or alcohol - which made the context of his first post absolutely ludicrous, as if he was a total square completely out of place at a Jethro Tull concert, wearing a white varsity letterman's sweater and nervously avoiding all drugs and beer. In his own words: "_I_REPORTED_ON_WHAT_I_SAW_!!! Nowhere here do I say that I partook in any of this."

There are many more examples, especially his attempts to create the impression that he is Australian (he obviously isn't) through his use of tiresome and overused Australian jargon, and that he is knowledgable enough to trace anyone to a reasonable proximity to create the impression that he is a psychotic stalker without actually doing any stalking.

These efforts are clearly the manifestation of some really deep-seated insecurity on Ted's part. Of course I'm not a trained mental health professional, but Kent Wills's wife is, and she's given a preliminary diagnosis that hit so close to the mark, Ted was forced to pretend she doesn't exist, so that the diagnosis could go away. That only served to cement his own already well-deserved reputation as a Usenet kook.

All of this ties together quite well in the Camoron Brown case. Ted has a clear agenda to pursue(*) in that he is protecting his sister by initially appealing for help and support in a forum where he has clearly alienated many others. Not finding that support, he needed to create the impression that he was a critical part of the inner circle of "Team Camoron", that he knew all sorts of things in his planet-sized brain that none of us knew about, that there was some "H-bomb-class evidence" which would completely exonerate Cam, and that all who were judging the case solely on the evidence and testimony available instead of taking him at his word were making fools out of themselves. This was particularly aimed at Ken Smith, who had taken several years worth of abuse from Ted about Ken's problems with the Colorado Board of Examiners, and now Ted was getting a huge heapin' helpin' of his own brand of hospitality right back in his manhole-cover-sized face.

(*) Although I am persuaded by analysis written by Loretta that Ted stands to gain if Camoron is found guilty of murdering Lauren. Ted can then crash with sister Patty for however long it takes the two of them to pull themselves out of financial insolvency and indentured servitude to Geragoesthemoney.

It was about two and a half months ago, maybe, that Ted stopped posting on Usenet. For many years, no matter how huge a jerk he made of himself, he generally fully identified himself, rarely disguising his name or email address. In the first few days of June of this year, facts, evidence, and testimony in the Brown trial came out so rapidly and so soundly refuting so many of his claims (detailed in the current blog entry) that he is much too embarrassed to post publically and non-anonymously any more. Clearly, either Ted was telling "de facto" lies, or else he was entirely misled by his brother-in-law. The embarrassment of being publically proven so wrong (or dishonest), so many times, on so many different things, now prevents him from posting anywhere using his own name. As I've told him several times, if I were him, I'd be ashamed of my own name too.

WMD

Skye said...

It sounds as though Ted's brain is so frazzled that he actually believes everything he is saying.

Both he and Patty are not afraid to expose their stupidity on a public blog. They are probably identical in every way.

Does anyone honestly believe that there was a conspiracy to convict a nobody baggage handler for a crime that didn't make headline news? Puleeez!

Use a little common sense! It is the heinous crime that is the stickler here. This one will not go away, without a mammoth fight! And, so it should, IMHO

Amen, Ted!

Skye said...

Loretta, thanks for the memories. You had me chortling!

Best wishes to Sarah and her family.

loretta said...

Excellent summary, Wayne. I always enjoy reading your posts.

loretta13 said...

Oh goody. The Kooky Kaldis clan has started a blog about their poor, wrongfully charged boy.

LINK

I highly recommend reading it and its comment section. It is a great way to keep tabs on the defense strategy for round 2.

I only wish it were called "Cam is Innocent dot com!"

But, you can't have everything.

Tell the Truth Loretta said...

I have known Cam since he was in elementry school. I have known the Browns family as well. I find this site (not this one Loreta and CG) and information even more revealing than I could imagine. The case by the prosocution seems to be so shady and I am hopeful that the true facts come out in this case. He has done his time. There is no mention of the time that he did when he was first accused of this crime, then put back shortly after the Patriot Act was passed. As someone who knows him, I would find it impossible for him to do this. I have heard the reports on the news, and even though they make the 911 call seem like he did not care, those who know Cam understand that his voice on the phone was shaken and that this was not his normal self. He is different than most folks, and what would seem to be strange to some, seems like the same ol Cam we all know and love.

I have seen the terrible bashing going on by Country Girl, Loretta and others on their blog, and now that they are out of ammo, they have to bash Ted and Patty. They must have nothing left to do I guess. This is so nice to find a site that has the other side of the story. The Loreeta and CG site seemed strange from the begininng. It now appears that Loretta is related to Sara (Laurens Mom) so now their site really stinks of a cover up. They take down anything that is in favor of Cam. Some great way to have a site that is devoted to the truth eh? Now that I see the cover up and the fact that they "Poof" every detail that may be against the prosicution, it smells foul and they should be convicted of covering up the evidence and being in bed with Mr. Hum and Sara's Mom.

Ted, Patty and whoever else is on this site, give my best to Cam. Keep the honesty in your site, and keep others like Loreta and CG under attack to tell the truth about the case. We all just need the whole story, not a one sided story like they want us to belive. They are serial Killers themselves, trying to put the innocent to death, while they giggle from the sidelines.

loretta said...

Wow. When did I suddenly become related to Sarah? (BTW, she has an "H" at the end of her name.)

It appears that the Cam supporters are idiots and nutcases just as we predicted.

I am going to enjoy reading the multiple posts by multiple nicknames of a handful of delusional people.

Patty and Ted are tag-teaming.

Tell the Truth Loreta said...

Enjoy it as I will. I have never met Ted, and Patty only once. You should be ashamed of yourself. Sara does not deserve correct spelling as she is as sitinkin guilty as you Loreta.

loretta said...

What kind of mentally ill person are you? Jeesh. ((rolling eyes))

Nutcase!!

Anonymous said...

Just looking for you to tell both sides of the story. Legally Sane

loretta said...

No, I'm not ashamed of myself. I have no guilt or shame connected with anything I have done in regard to this case, or much of anything else for that matter.

Don't project your insecurities and failing mental faculties onto me. If you don't like my opinion, you don't have to read it.

If you continue to post obscene and idiotic things, you will be deleted. You are free to read and post elsewhere, until they throw you off, too.

loretta said...

And as far as telling "both sides of the story," I don't know Brown's side of the story, and he and his defense team failed to tell us that.

If he wants to take the stand next time, I will be all ears.

loretta said...

Actually, it's quite vindicating to see that the Brown supporters are vile, disrespectful, dishonest and stupid.

If they were polite, erudite, courteous and kind, it would be a lot harder to dislike them.

As it is, it proves that water seeks its own level and that Brown and his little flock of morons are all evil, disgusting and loathsome folks who deserve each other.

Mgt said...

Excuse me, Ms/Mr Simplicity!

"Cam Brown" made the 911 call seem like he didn't care, not "they"! WTH!

I hope you are going to leave that rambling-blather up there, Loretta.

Readers should be able to see what you are dealing with and make up their own minds.

Making accusations about "giggling from the sidelines". I mean, how can you help it?

The person who set up that "other" site has made Cam Brown sound like the same type of "Boy Scout" fella that Scott Peterson was. Sorry, I'm cracking up, here!

Skye said...

The one about Mark Geragos being a good lawyer, also had me rolling on the floor laughing.

There is that "beLIVE" word again! How can you help but roll in the isles?!

loretta said...

Ha. There is no "Lo/Cathy" squabble except in the Land of Make-Believe. That scenario is brought to you by a few nutcases and idiots who have no lives.

loretta said...

The same sort of mentality that brought you "Cam the Loving Dad" and "Patty the Loving Step-Mom" - the loving parents who witnessed or participated in undermining a child's mother, scaring a child, dunking her in water, throwing her bag in the street, peeling rubber in her wake, badmouthing the granmother.

If Patty Brown tolerated that kind of abuse, she is to be pitied. She never learned the lesson: If he does it to her, he will do it to YOU.

Hard, harsh lessons.

Theodore A. Kaldis said...

Tag teaming? Psuh ... I have no posts at all on that other blog.

loretta said...

Sure you did. You posted quite often at the LH2 blog.

Do you want me to post the evidence?

Theodore A. Kaldis said...

The LH2 blog is now down. But there are no posts of mine on that other blog that you just posted to.

And, oh, by the way: one good turn deserves another. I just POOFed your post on that other blog.

Ronni said...

Oh, he doesn't post there--he's just admin. Right.

loretta said...

That's ok, I figured you would, so I saved it -- italics are the quote from the new Brown blob:

They are in bed with the prosection more than you think. Here is a little something CG (Pat Pritchett-Sophy) wrote in a private chat group. But someone who was angry with her group posted it on a public board.

CountryGirl disse...
Old Goat, when the trial starts I told Jeff Leslie I'm coming down when he testifies. We should try and meet there.
December 16, 2005 7:06 PM
Old Goat disse...
Re. Brown, We shall meet and whisper, CG. Swap snickers in the gallery. Then lunch. Ah, Torrance!



Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day, and that's saying a lot, since I had lunch with a dear friend from high school and we always laugh really hard and often when together.

"Old Goat" is a nom de plume of a lawyer in CA who is a woman. She has no connection to the case, and did not have any connection to the Bobby Blake case, but she went to the trial and reported to us over at Misfitting at the time.

Some of you folks really make a lot of assumptions about the most scantily clad bits of information! It is really funny.

Speaking of funny, so are the dramatic descriptions of Cam Brown's love and passion for Lauren. You ought to consider writing soap opera plots, Patty. The drama and angst are technicolor.

Where's Cecil B. DeMille?
loretta | 08.24.06 - 10:51 am | #

Ronni said...

Dead.

loretta said...

You gotta love the "Rules of Engagement" in the new blob:

Rules of Engagement
1. Be Respectful

(If you want to disrespect Sarah, the police, the DA, the judge, the posters, Loretta, Ken, Misfitting, or anyone else, please post at CG and Loretta's blog or one of the hate blogs.)

2. No Personal Information

(If you want to post people's personal information, please do so on one of the bashing blogs or, better, yet, at Usenet, where it stays forever. Just ask Shina Hart.)

3. No Trollish Behaviour

(Note the affected UK/Australian spelling. Again, if you want to be trollish, please do that at CG and L's blog or at Usenet whenever you see Loretta post there.)

4. Mind Your Manners

(ROFL! A tad redundant, but that is the Kaldis area of expertise -- redundancy.)

5. No Spam

??? Spammers are usually bots. Yeah, they are going to read the front page and say, "Ok!" LOL what idiots.

googleid said...

What I find exceptionally comical is the seeing the same photos of Cam and Lauren over and over again.

It appears that the Cam Camp believes by plastering these few (what 20 or so?) photos of the two of them together on various webpages, it somehow "proves" this great father/daughter love connection.

The photos look to me like they were taken on the same day, same event (most of them anyway). If anything, that portrays a parent who was NOT involved in his daughters life, contrary to their intended purpose.

In the first 3 years of my daughters life there are HUNDREDS of photos taken by myself and others, with me & my daughter in the picture.

So, in my eyes, if Cam truly were a loving/concerned/involved parent...where was he the rest of her 3 year life events and where are the pictures of those events???

Ronni said...

So, obviously I'm being optimistic in hoping they will stay away.

By the way, I spell like that--hope it's OK. It may look affected, but I honestly get confused if I don't do it. American spellings still look "wrong" to me.

loretta said...

All the other photos were confiscated, destroyed, disappeared, stolen, what have you.

According to Kaldis.

Plus, something about a stolen Mike Ditka autograph.

Anonymous said...

"loretta said...
All the other photos were confiscated, destroyed, disappeared, stolen, what have you.

According to Kaldis."

Maybe they were left in Australia.

'-)

CountryGirl said...

Breezy, those birthday photos were the saddest pictures I have ever seen. Thank God I never saw the ones he took the day she died. Staged! The last thing on my mind if my daughter fell off a 120 ft cliff to her death would be to offer up a disposable camera with pictures so that I could prove she looked happy.


4 Q DID MR. BROWN ALSO INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE

5 HAD SOME TYPE OF A CAMERA?

6 A YES, HE DID.

7 Q TELL US HOW THAT CAME UP.

8 A THAT WAS TOLD TO US BY THE HANDLING PATROL

9 DEPUTIES. DEPUTIES GIRMES AND BROTHERS HAD INDICATED

10 THAT HE HAD BROUGHT THAT TO THEIR ATTENTION WHEN THEY HAD

11 ORIGINALLY CONTACTED HIM.

12 AND HE HAD ALSO TOLD US WHEN QUESTIONED,

13 YES, THAT HE DID HAVE A CAMERA, HE HAD TAKEN WHAT HE

14 BELIEVED TO BE FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF LAUREN; THEY WERE

15 ENJOYING THE DAY, THEY WERE RELAXING, AND THESE

16 PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD PROVE TO US THAT -- OR WOULD SHOW US

17 THAT SHE WAS HAPPY, THEY WERE HAVING A GOOD TIME AND THEY

18 WERE JUST OUT FOR A LEISURELY DAY.

CountryGirl said...

Now WHY would he think he needed to show that Lauren was happy and they were just out for a leisurely day?

Did he think Smith and Leslie thought Lauren was suicidal?

Think about it. Consciousness of guilt, IMO. Big red flag!

holmes said...

Lifted from The All American Hero blog, "As far as bounced checks are concerned, he had a deal were the bank covered bounced checks."

What bank did Cam use? I want to open an account. Heck, I only have $96, but I can write a check for $584 and the bank will cover it. Even more than once, up to 30 times in a year.

What a deal.

Picking up all kinds of penny pinching tidbits. Only pay your utility bills every other month. Wow.

I dunno my dad always called people that couldn't pay their bills on time poor or deadbeats.

loretta said...

And poor Sarah was just manipulated and the cops lied and twisted Brown's words, and Patty will get a job when she wants to, don't cha know?

(((rolling eyes)))

That site is a farce. I am not even going to waste my energy refuting it. I learned back during the Peterson case when the crazy Peterson apologists set up a message board and refused to believe any of the evidence.

It was so tedious after awhile, nobody with any sense would bother with it.

I'm not going to get roped into defending the People's case. It spoke for itself and will again at the next trial.

I do hope Hum reads Patty and Ted's arguments so he can anticipate some of GerEgo's questions and strategy on the next round.

As usual, the Kaldis Twins can't stifle themselves. They are so desperate and deluded, they really think that their blog is going to help Cam.

On the contrary, like their posts at Usenet and Muttville, it will only HURT Brown.

Fardling idiots.

loretta said...

I also notice that they haven't been able to make true all the false things Kaldis said on Usenet throughout the past year.

They can't create out of thin air things that will exonerate Cam. All they can do is argue semantics or ridiculous excuses for things, just like Marlene Newell did with Peterson.

In the Twins' eyes, nothing is evidence that Brown did it. Even a videotape of him or an eye witness would be treated with suspicion and accused as fake.

It's ridiculous. I have no time for them.

holmes said...

It is a waste of time to even read the whacked out comments, but ever so entertaining.

I'm still amusing myself with Ted having manners and being civil.

The state put on their case and so did the defense. Patty needs another lawyer or it's nothing but big whoppers being told over yonder. I'm going with fishing stories.

Justice will prevail. I have faith.

God bless Lauren and Sarah.

Kent Wills said...

You hit all the major "claims" (I'm being kind here) Ted posted to Usenet. There are probably others, but they would prove to be minor.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, CG wrote:
Quid pro quo of $300 and a rock. Sure.

Ted isn't one to let something like truth or facts get in the way. Besides, as Ba'al is Ted's witness, Cameron is innocent!

holmes said...

Heck, Cam isn't just innocent, he's the male Mother Theresa.

Rescuing people left and right.

He should have been a paramedic.

CountryGirl said...

holmes said:

Lifted from The All American Hero blog, "As far as bounced checks are concerned, he had a deal were the bank covered bounced checks."

BWAAAAAAAA! Yeah, it's called overdraft protection and comes with gigantic interest. He was no financial wizard.

Did I read where he jumped in the ocean to save someone? Why didn't he just call 911?

CountryGirl said...

Next we'll hear he was Clark Kent disguised as a mild mannered baggage handler.

loretta said...

Sounds like the stuff people said about Peterson - that he threw golf matches because he didn't want to hurt people's feelings; that he organized his parents' anniversary party; that he changed people's flat tires.

Same old same old. I'm not impressed.

loretta said...

Heck, look at BTK - he was a deacon in his church, led Boy Scouts or something, had a steady job with the city.

Yeah, they're all Mr. Nice Guys.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta13 wrote:
Oh goody. The Kooky Kaldis clan has started a blog about their poor, wrongfully charged boy.

Items *I* find of interest:

Cam Brown was arrested on November 16, 2003 and has been in prison without bail for nearly three years.

And that is 100% Cameron's fault! He waived his right to a speedy trial, and could have rescinded it at any time. For whatever reason, Cam chose not to. Don't cry because Cameron didn't want a speedy trial.

He was indicted on July, 19, 2004 (after 8 months of incarceration)

AND roughly eight months of the defense delaying. Ted's already admited that it was the defense that was delaying at the beginning.

and his case went to trial on May 30, 2006. The trial ended in a mistrial and Cam continues to be incarcerated without bail.

Personaly, I think he should be released on a sizable, cash only bail. The mistrial shows that the case for 1st degree murder isn't as solid as Hum thought.

Note: This is just my opinion. I don't know what California law states regarding such cases, so bail may still not be on option.

His imprisonment has functioned as a means to reduce his opportunity and ability to defend himself.

Has Cameron been refused access to Geragos? If so, as the sentence above implies, then legal action can and should be taken.

While Cam was driving on PCH, he saw a stranger who was caught in a rip tide. Cam pulled his car off the road, ran down to the beach, jumped into the ocean and pulled the stranger out of the rip tide.

No mention that Cameron removed his clothing. Of course, Cameron wasn't trying to get every possible second to pass in hopes of the person being found dead.

Mr. Hum contends Cam killed Lauren to avoid paying $1,000 a month in child support. However, the people who know him say Cam doesn't care about money.

But those things he does care about cost a lot of money.

Mr. Hum's performance in the Cam Brown case proved him to be a master of misleading statements.

Only for the very stupid (read: The Kaldis Family).

"I learned that the record shows that Cameron obtained 'weekly visitation' in Sept or Oct of 1999. He missed all of two visits (one to get married in Hawaii and one for a doctor’s visit). He saw his child once a week for a little over a year. That is more than 14 visits! Why did Hum say that it was only 14," a poster questioned. A defender of Mr. Hum quickly sprung up and responded, "Hum never said [Cam Brown] only had 14 visits with Lauren. His visits were a total of 14 days of her 4 years. That was adding up all the hours and overnight visits he had with her." "Very interesting how facts can be presented in a misleading way," a third voice chimed in.

Hum could have pointed out that in the whole of Lauren's life, Cameron only spend about 336 hours with her. Would that have been better?

Mr. Geragos asked him if he had been available to testify during the prosecution’s case. He said he had, but Mr. Hum had not called him to testify. "Maybe they forgot," Mr. Geragos mused.

Real mature there, Marc.

However, what is especially indicative of Mr. Hum's propensity to mislead whoever he is speaking to is this: even after officer Schliebe testified that he had determined that the impressions were NOT shoe prints MR. HUM CONTINUED TO REFER TO THE IMPRESSIONS AS SHOE PRINTS WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE JURY!

And it seems that in the opion of the author, the jury was too stupid to notice. Ted must've written it.

Cam sought the guidance of a counselor, in part because he had legitimate reason to believe the child was not his.

Yet, according to Ted, Cameron told her to get an abortion. If he didn't believe Lauren was his, he wouldn't have cared one iota if Sarah kept the child or not. That, according to Ted, Cameron told Sarah to get an abortion indicates that, at the absolute least, Cameron suspected the yet to be born Lauren was his.

Yet from this Mr. Hum created the falsehood that Cam tried to force Sarah to have an abortion.

My recolection of the comments from KFI, which Ted has told us were accurate, is that no one claimed Cameron tried to *force* her to get an abortion. He did tell her to get one, but it's not like he used any duress.

He talked about what activities they would do during the following week's visit. His visits with Lauren were the highlight of his week.

This doesn't speak well of Patty. Cameron enjoyed his time with Lauren more than his time with Patty. Suddenly I understand why Cameron never sought to get a speedy trial. He didn't want to have to risk being around Patty any soon that he had to.

Cam worked very hard to spend as much time with Lauren as he was permitted. He loved spending time with her. It didn't matter what they did, so long as they were together. Her favorite game was playing "tea." Cam bought her a tea set and would sit with her on a child size table and play "tea" with her regularly. They would walk to De Portola Park where Lauren loved to play on the monkey bars and swings. They would color together. They played "hide and go seek." Cam would pretend like he couldn't find her. They played tag. Lauren out of the blue would often tap Cam and proclaim "you're it." He would scoop her up and tickle her and she would laugh and giggle. He would carry her on his shoulders.

He would throw her suitcase into the middle of the street and tell her to pick it up. He would pick her up from school on a motorcycle WITHOUT any safety gear for Lauren. He would take her to IP, a place that pictures alone show is far too dangerous a place for a child to be. "And NOTHING works like pictures." -- Ted Kaldis

The story describes how Craig Hum locked up a 14-year old boy for 8 months for a crime the boy did not commit; a crime for which the boy had a solid alibi -- and Craig Hum knew it.

Hum had the boy released when the evidence showed he was innocent. Hum has a habit of NOT prosecuting those for whom the evidence either fails to prove guilt, or proves innocence.

Cameron may end up being found not guilty, but he's certainly not anywhere near as innocent as the Kaldis Klan would like us to believe.

Kent Wills said...

A total nutter wrote:
The Loreeta and CG site seemed strange from the begininng. It now appears that Loretta is related to Sara (Laurens Mom) so now their site really stinks of a cover up.

Oh no! The truth is out.

Yep. Loretta and Sarah are cousins. Identical cousins and you'll find, they walk alike, talk alike, at times they even dispise Cameron alike. It'll blow your mind, when cousins, are two of a kind.

Appologies to the folks at "The Patty Duke Show." :)

CountryGirl said...

Couple of errors ====>

Cameron was indicted July 20, 2004, not the 19th (picky picky).

Cameron also missed a visit with Lauren because he didn't have gas money. Not that he had money problems or anything.

Back to reading ^^^.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:

Wow. When did I suddenly become related to Sarah? (BTW, she has an "H" at the end of her name.)

Only Sarah's identical cousin would notice that missing "H". Proof positive that you and Sarah are identical cousins.

Meet Sarah, who's lived most everywhere,
From Zanzibar to Barclay Square.
But Loretta's only seen the sight.
A girl can see from Cleveland Heights --
What a crazy pair!

But they're cousins,
Identical cousins all the way.
One pair of matching bookends,
Different as night and day.

Kent Wills said...

In between dosses of Zyprexa, Tell the Truth Loreta wrote:

Enjoy it as I will. I have never met Ted, and Patty only once. You should be ashamed of yourself. Sara does not deserve correct spelling as she is as sitinkin guilty as you Loreta.

This is going to be good. Please enlighten us all and tell us what crime(s) Loretta and Sarah commited.

CountryGirl said...

sitinkin

Evidently the english language doesn't deserve correct spelling either.

sitinkin=when your relatives stage a sit in.

CountryGirl said...

I want to be related to Sarah! I'm j e a l o u s! Why does Loretta always get the good cousin?

Kent Wills said...

At one time, holmes wrote:

Lifted from The All American Hero blog, "As far as bounced checks are concerned, he had a deal were the bank covered bounced checks."

Overdraft protection. Most banks offer it. As I understand it, the interest rate is very high, but it might be worth it if monwy is tight one month.

What bank did Cam use? I want to open an account. Heck, I only have $96, but I can write a check for $584 and the bank will cover it. Even more than once, up to 30 times in a year.

And yet, Cameron and Patty were LATE on their power bill for 12 months in a row! You'd think they'd take advantage of the overdraft protection a time or two.

CountryGirl said...

Yeah, like for gas money to visit your child when that's all you looked forward to all week.

CountryGirl said...

Oh--and did anyone 'splain ====> the discrapancy in Geragosthemony's claim in court that Cam and Sarah broke up over a car loan and Ted's post that Cam broke up with Sarah because she was seeing other guys?

Which one is it? Huh?

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:

I also notice that they haven't been able to make true all the false things Kaldis said on Usenet throughout the past year.

What ever became of the "H-Bomb" class evidence that Ted promised us? You know, the evidence that would PROVE Cameron is 100% innocent of all possible charges?

Ted, since you read everything that is written here, why not tell us when the "H-Bomb" went off. No one else noticed it.

And don't bother claiming Geragos didn't use it because he didn't think he needed to. I thought of that excuse months ago.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, countrygirl wrote:
Did I read where he jumped in the ocean to save someone? Why didn't he just call 911?

He wasn't looking to stall for time with the other person. Cameron wanted to person kept alive.

CountryGirl said...

He must not have seen Baywatch by then either.

Cousin Kent Wills said...

At one time, countrygirl wrote:

I want to be related to Sarah! I'm j e a l o u s! Why does Loretta always get the good cousin?

You can be my cousin. I'm no Loretta, but I did take State in the "Gross Bodily Noises" competition four years in a row :-)

CountryGirl said...

Hahahahahahaha!

Kent Wills said...

At one time, countrygirl wrote:

He must not have seen Baywatch by then either.

If Patty is to be believed, Cameron NEVER watched Baywatch. Of course, this means that, in Patty's mind, Cameron cared more about his clothing than Lauren.

Ronni said...

You guys have me in stitches, here! Ain't it grand to have such fodder?

Ronni said...

"Cameron cared more about his clothing than Lauren."

Something Patty could relate to!

CountryGirl said...

Hi cousin Ronni! Yes, all those people he saved must have not been able to get off work and testify in court. Surely they saw the media coverage. What horrible citizens that they didn't rush to Geragos & Geragos immediately.

Or, maybe MG thought Hum would have pointed out to the jury that he failed to have the same reaction when Lauren "fell".

loretta said...

I'm taking a break from reading the Stephen King novel, Cell and noticed that another bit of fiction is being written at the Kooky Kaldis Blob.

It's the tired argument, "There's No Playbook For Grief!"

Yeah, all normal dads greet their friends on the phone with "Whassup, Dude?" a short time after their daughters die from a fall from a cliff where they were a witness.

Riiiiight.

We are just meanies. We don't understand pooor innocent Cam.

Please pass the kleenex.

Ronni said...

Au contraire, ma cousine. Le pauvre Cam n'est pas innocent.

Skye said...

Reading that section of the Trial Transcript is rather disturbing.

The fact that Cam was making such an issue of Lauren being "happy", makes me realise how desperately unhappy she must have been that day.

Today, I will refrain from calling him a POS (see what I did there?)

Skye said...

Yes, Cam Brown was a real "prize"! Torturing and tormenting a child in the most horrific way. A "King-size" bully masquerading as a nice guy.

Ted wants him released so that he can defend himself?! What a wonderful idea - let him out, I say. There must be at least one guy out there, worth his salt, who would love to take a pop at Cameron Brown. Lets see him "defend" himself.

Believe me, Ted, that monster is better off where he is, and he knows it.

Lets hope you and twin sister wear laundered clothing to the next trial, if you are allowed to attend, that is!

Apologies to Sarah for anything here that may be upsetting.

ken said...

I'm posting this on both blogs, to see whether Ted Kaldis (a.k.a. "Case Insider") is willing to live up to his much-ballyhooed commitment to let both sides be heard. (I don't believe him any more than I do on any other claim he has made.)

I write this as someone who frankly doesn’t give a damn whether Cameron Brown is convicted or acquitted. Everything of substance that I’ve said about this case has been vindicated, from the assessment that there was enough evidence to charge and indict and that this “turkey” (as Ted K. put it) would go to trial to a fairly accurate outline of the prosecution’s case and a prediction that the outcome was too close to call, but a conviction was more likely than not.

First off, it has been established beyond cavil that the case against Cameron Brown should have gone to trial, inasmuch as it has been proven that the State was able to persuade a strong majority of a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered Lauren and 100%, that he committed involuntary manslaughter. Let’s get past the Kaldisian propaganda that Cam is “obviously innocent” and acknowledge, as Ted has on Usenet, that everyone working for the State was just doing their job to the best of their ability, and that the powers-that-be honestly believed that Cam murdered Lauren Sarene Key. Moreover, as nearly as can be determined from my vantage point, Judge Richard A. Arnold called a reasonably fair game, and the system worked more-or-less as it was supposed to.

That having been said, it is amusing that Ted K. (a/k/a/ “Case Insider”) -- whose primary mode of argumentation on Usenet for decades has been the ad hominem personal attack -- would whine so petulantly about the fact that L.A. prosecutor Craig Hum did his job so well. In case you have missed it in your high school civics class, Hum’s job was to present relevant facts in a manner that isn’t particularly flattering to Cam; it’s Mark Geragos’ job to bring out facts which paint Cam in a more favorable light. To say that Hum is a silver-tongued devil, whilst[sic] Geragos is fighting for truth, justice, and the American Way, is ludicrous on its face. And guess what? Hum does get to cherry-pick his witnesses -- as does Geragos.

Translated from the TKTFD (google that on Usenet), “misleading statements” obviously means “those statements unfavorable to Cam.” The 9-1-1 tape was arguably enough to convict in itself, and every statement of substance therein was Cam’s. Instead of rushing to the scene in desperate hope of saving Lauren, Cam wasted five minutes on a friggin’ cell phone! Five minutes, to make certain that Lauren was dead.

“But if the guy’s a ‘twit, you must acquit!”

Next, “Case Insider” whines about the fact that prosecutor Hum brought in a consultant to aid him in picking the jury. It’s pretty much standard fare these days -- attorneys have been doing this on an ad hoc basis ever since peremptory challenges were devised -- and nothing stopped Geragos from doing the same. Cam is a lot luckier than most, insofar as he was able to pay for competent counsel; in America, you get about as much justice as you can pay for, and the average defendant has to make do with a public defender.

Speaking of “misleading statements,” I am understandably curious as to how this statement became a part of the official court record:

Within weeks of learning Key was pregnant, however, Brown drove over to Key’s apartment and parked his car. As he approached the apartment building, he saw a man and woman kissing passionately in a car outside the apartment building. Brown looked into the car and saw Key was the woman. Brown left without incident.

Since Cam didn’t testify, and the only person who could have testified to that effect was Cam, this is inadmissible hearsay. It cannot be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that Cam saw Sarah and another man kissing) at trial. Yet, by referring to it as being a part of the “official court record,” Ted (a/k/a/ “Case Insider”) is consciously attempting to mislead his audience into believing that these were facts properly determined by the Court -- when they are, at best, Cam’s own self-serving statements. If you complain about the misleading statements of others, you are not at liberty to engage in it yourself.

Finally, while I am not surprised at all the psycho-babble in the Comments section of the blog, I was shocked and appalled that Geragos didn’t do a better job of presenting this defense at trial. If Judge Arnold had twisted the jury’s arms a little harder -- he could have, and indeed, I’m more than astonished that he didn’t -- there would have been a conviction on Murder Two, that would not have been overturned. Geragos surely knew what was coming (for that matter, so did I), and should have gotten out in front of that train before it hit.

Skye said...

Ken, those quotes are just more ridiculous blather (from Ted, I'm almost certain). It really is hard not to laugh!

I'm so glad you know of what you speak. Without hurling insults, as well.

Cheers!

ken said...

Sorry about the technical difficulties. For whatever reason, I kept getting a "no data" error message, and didn't know that the comments were in fact being posted.

Ronni said...

Blogspot has been having a spot of trouble this morning.

ken said...

Here's another duplicate of a post submitted to the pro-Cam blog:
__________________________________________________________________________

Allow me to tell you what I do know about the case, Anon. First off, I lived in Southern California, and I have physically visited the crime scene. I have visited the courthouse, and scanned the case file (VERY light, at the time). I have reviewed significant portions of the grand jury transcript, and analyzed the 995 motion. I have read most of the articles written on this case, and heard most of Shannon Farren's KFI reports. Patty has revealed information to me via e-mail, which I won't discuss here. We have also received testimony of Cam's friends in USENET regarding his general character (one man accused him of stealing valuables from LAX luggage). If you will peruse USENET, you will find that I have been treated to a endless, manic stream of Ted's generally disjointed and paranoid rants; unfortunately, many of the claims he has presented were both false and quite obviously so (e.g., that Craig Hum was prosecuting this case for short-term political gain; unfortunately for Ted, Hum wasn't running for office, and it took me no more than two minutes to refute that claim). I submit I have heard more than enough -- from both sides! -- for me to develop a reasonably informed opinion.

Have I read the transcripts? No, and I'm not particularly keen to do so now. My ultimate concern was in seeing that Cam got a reasonably fair trial, and main focus was in explaining to Ted why this wasn't the most egregious travesty of justice since Sacco and Venzetti. Likewise, I have never talked with Danny Smith, Sarah Key-Marer, or anyone who is directly associated with the prosecution. I don't really *know* their side of the story.

My professional background includes a juris doctor and master's in taxation; I have done forensic accounting work for pay and in support of litigation. I have run a dozen marathons, qualifying for Boston. I am also an avid skier and hiker and in general, bring a useful skill set to the case. Moreover, my life experiences cause me to distrust authority, and I am instinctively suspicious of prosecutorial motives.

What I find remarkable is that, if the trial went as you say it did, independent witnesses such as Denise Nix and Shannon Farren, who had no axe to grind, reported it so differently. Moreover, it was not lost on me that ten jurors voted for Murder Two, and all twelve would have voted for voluntary manslaughter. These are the people we trust to determine the witnesses' credibility, and I am loath to too abruptly place myself in their position. If the facts are not as was reported, that blood is at Mark Geragos' feet. ["Anonymous" (probably Ted) apparently maintains that the jury poll is not correct, despite the fact that it was reported by the media as such. My questions are, how do you know? And where is the support for your claim? Ted makes bogus claims all the time, to the point where, if he says it, I tend to discount it automatically.]

I still think that retaining Geragos was a very good call on Ted's part, though I am concerned that this blog will be required reading for one of Hum's paralegals. I suspect that Ted's bluster had a deleterious effect on the first trial, and very little good can come from this blog in the short run. The second trial is less than two months away; can't it wait?

To Cat, I would say that, while the ultimate goal of our system is to ascertain the truth, we normally get there by letting both sides make their best possible case, within the confines of the rules. Fact is, in most cases, witness recollection is often fuzzy -- particularly, when it involves matters that don't greatly concern you. While Cam's conduct on that day is of overriding concern to him and his family, the witness on the trail probably didn't think that much of seeing Lauren trail behind Cam. As a marathoner myself, I know what kind of fitness level Cam had attained, and the notion (advanced by Ted) that he couldn't keep up with Lauren on that trail is so bizarre to me that it hardly bears repeating. I'd be more inclined to believe that Cam was leading.

In all candor, I don't have a great deal of interest in the nuts and bolts of Cam's case and specifically, whether this witness or that witness was credible. That's a call for the jury, and unless there is some patent violation of Cam's due process rights, I'm not inclined to second-guess their concludions. I will say that, based on what I know about the case (see above), I believe it more likely than not that Cam did murder Lauren, and have no problem with the fact that he might not be convicted of the alleged crime. But that conclusion is, of course, always subject to reconsideration.

As for "Case Insider" being Ted, he has *already* admitted to being the admin on CG's/Loretta's blog ("I just POOFed your post on that other blog"). Ted *hates* not being able to shut the two of them up, and this is pretty much what you'd expect from him. If it isn't Ted, it's Patty, and Ted is directly involved.

I am still interested in hearing a credible explanation as to why "Case Insider" resorted to the very kind of fraud s/he accused Craig Hum of engaging in. It is misleading at best to intimate that Cam's account of Sarah and another man embracing in the car was admitted into evidence at trial as proof that it happened in that way.

CountryGirl said...

CI should post the transcript.

CountryGirl said...

In addition, Geragos argued to the jury that Cameron and Sarah broke up over a car loan. Only Ted claimed it was because he saw her with another guy(s).

ken said...

Response to Anon [to both blogs]:

[Anon:] I have read all of the GJ transcript....more than once. I have read the 995, reviewed all of the autopsy and Hayes Report,

Thereby proving that you are either Ted or Patty (most likely, Ted, as he has capitalized "Hayes Report" before]. No one else would care that much and have access to that kind of information.

[Anon, cont.:] which brings up another point...why was the jury only allowed to see a very limited portion of the autopsy report? Are you aware of that discrepancy?

That's Judge Arnold's call. Given that even Ted admitted that he was calling a fair game, and I can think of reasons why it would have been redacted, I'm not troubled by it. If, however, I was provided credible evidence that would legitimately create cause for alarm, I would change my view on it.

{Anon:] Are you also aware that the GJ transcript only gives one side of the issue, much of which was discredited during the trial?

While I don't know that it was "discredited" -- the evidence indicates otherwise, at least in the collective eyes of the jury, I'm aware enough of any information to consider the source, Ted and/or Patty.

[Anon:] Ken, I'm shocked that you have not figured out that news sources are some of the worst when it comes to getting a complete and accurate story.

I'm well aware of it, having had first-hand experience to that effect -- but I'm also weighing it against the presumptive fact that you have a personal interest in this case and as such, reason to lie.

[Me:] We have also received testimony of Cam's friends in USENET regarding his general character (one man accused him of stealing valuables from LAX luggage).

[Anon:] I saw that. Funny that particular friend was not called to testify, don't you think?

Not in the slightest. See generally, Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); I'm sure the CA evidence code is substantially identical, even though I don't have it in front of me. You don't get to prove that Cam is a bad guy generally, because it is prejudicial; however, if the defense attempts to show that he was Mother Teresa in drag, his testimony comes in. My 'read' is that Geragos didn't go there, for precisely that reason.

[Anon:] That is unfortunate. Not surprising though. Many people develop their opinions based on a very limited exposure to the facts. Of course, with your background I would think you would have a greater understanding of the reason we have a jury system and the opportunity for all people to defend themselves IN A COURT OF LAW.

I honestly don't know what you're jabbering about here. I'm deferring to the jury with respect to the decision that matters -- whether Cam is guilty of murdering Lauren beyond a reasonable doubt. My opinion has no particular consequence and moreover, an acquittal does not constitute an exoneration.

[Anon:] In a trial of this nature, all people have a right to their day in court. If you are not interested in what happened in it's totality, you stiffle the purpose of having a trial to begin with.

We can't know everything that happens in every trial in every state of the Union; most folks don't even know their Congressman. In our system, we delegate the decision to a jury, and until Cam's second jury enters a final and binding determination, I don't see compelling reasons to worry about the details of the case.

[Me:] What I find remarkable is that, if the trial went as you say it did, independent witnesses such as Denise Nix and Shannon Farren, who had no axe to grind, reported it so differently. Moreover, it was not lost on me that ten jurors voted for Murder Two, and all twelve would have voted for voluntary manslaughter.

[Anon:] Wrong. Two were absolutely opposed to a guilty conviction. I suspect you listened to the news. In fact, the earlier count was higher, but the judge tried to encourage a conviction and three prople did change their vote to the lesser charge. The point is that there was reasonable doubt and only two people bought the people's case as presented.

I suspect this is more a matter of your hearing what you want to hear, as opposed to what was actually said. For there to be an acquittal, the whole jury has to agree that there was reasonable doubt. While the news media sometimes does get it wrong, it is equally (or even more) possible that you got it wrong. At bare minimum, ten jurors wanted Murder Two or higher, which moots the point in any event.

[Me:] ["Anonymous" (probably Ted) apparently maintains that the jury poll is not correct, despite the fact that it was reported by the media as such

[Anon:] The media . I rest my case.

Why should I trust you -- who won't even reveal who you are! -- over Shannon Farren of KFI, whom even Ted described as scrupulously fair?

[Anon:] Well, I might agree with you if there was not such a strong move to demonize a man I believe is innocent of the charges brought against him.

In case you missed it, that's the way a murder trial goes; it's not unusual enough to even warrant mention. Most murder suspects are made out to he Real Bad Guys.

[Anon:] I absolutely see no support for the idea he threw his daughter off a cliff, and few of the jury saw it either.

With respect, to say that there was no support for the idea is little more than dishonest rhetorical hyperbole. The 9-1-1 call was chilling, and quite compelling to anyone who wasn't laboring under intense trial delusion. Whether it was enough to convict is quite another matter, but please don't insult your readers with such rhetoric.

[Anon:] Hum failed to prove his case even though he yelled out to the jury that they MUST convict Cameron Brown of manslaughter. "It's the law," he exclaimed!

Strange, but both media outlets reported that Geragos was the one who reminded the jury of the manslaughter charge, and that Hum didn't even bother to remind them of it. What's more, CountryGirl was THERE -- and she heard the same thing THEY heard. Why should I believe you, and not three credible witnesses? CG wrote concerning Hum's rebuttal:

It’s not your job to rebut my argument as the defense just asked.

The defendant’s lawyer didn’t deliver what he promised in opening
statements. Where’s the Don’t Die Guy? If the defendant’s lawyer
wants to bring witnesses or evidence that we don’t—we aren’t hiding
anything—they are free to bring it themselves. Nothing stopped them
from doing that.

The defendant’s lawyer implied that Jeff Leslie lied about the
defendant’s story. If Jeff Leslie was going to make up a story,
wouldn’t it be a better story to say that 10 minutes into the
interview the defendant confessed? Why make up this story? It
makes no sense. Jeff Leslie has no reason to lie.

We have to include involuntary manslaughter because it’s the law…
we don’t want you to convict him on that. He’s guilty of first
degree murder. We know the truth!

Sounds like you've been caught in a Ted-class whopper, Anon.

ken said...

Another salient post from the KaldisBlog:

[Gia wrote:] Does disregarding part of the autopsy findings also qualify as "not an irregularity" Ken? How about an ME who defers to the police and a pediatric specialist who made her conclusions based on faulty (false) facts given to her by the police? Is that how these things are normally done?

With respect, Gia, if you are going to make these wild and incendiary accusations without supporting evidence, you really can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

By way of example, as a general rule, an autopsy report would come in in its entirety; if you wanted to keep some of it out, you would file a motion in limine. You'd get your say; the other side would get his or hers, and the judge rules on the motion. For me to have any opinion of value on whether the redaction of portions of the autopsy report was proper, I'd have to see the motions and the unredacted autopsy. While it is possible that the redaction was improper, I can't offer an opinion worth talking about on that issue; to say that it is an irregularity would be presumptuous at best.

Whether you like it or not, expert opinions are SUPPOSED to be based on evidence as presented at trial. Anything else is improper, as you may have noticed from the Andrea Yates trial -- expert Park Elliot Dietz finally got caught making up facts in his opinion, which he does on a regular basis. Experts defer because they should, as you can imagine the mischief you'd have if they got to make up their own facts.

I don't see anything so far that even hints at the distinctive odor of judicial impropriety. If Team Cam wants to make these accusations, they can do themselves a favour[sic] and post the docs they have, such as the unredacted autopsy, the Hayes report (and their expert's counterpart), and any other pertinent evidence they have in their possession.

While I am certainly willing to consider what you may think you have, I'm a pretty tough room and will put you to the test. :-)

loretta said...

Mark Geragos hired by planet (maybe former planet) Pluto?

LINK

ken said...

FWIW, here's another cross-post:

[Anonymous:] Might I suggest that you didn't see any transcripts supporting what Gia said because you haven't seen any transcripts?

No, I haven't ... except for the ones Loretta has been quoting to support her claims. It's incumbent upon you to prove your case. As your spiritual leader Ted Kaldis once said,

"I don't need to disprove it, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!! You made the claim. That's how things work in an enlightened society. Otherwise, we're back to the Dark Ages."

I'll look forward to seeing your proof -- assuming that any is forthcoming -- in the main body of the blog.

ken said...

This made it into the KaldisBlog. Don't expect it to last....

Ted wrote:

It seems that the "weeble wobble burglar" (Kent Wills) is putting words in my mouth.

It didn't take long for the R.O.E. to change, and for Stalker Ted to bring his baggage into the blog.

For the record, Ted, with comments like these out there, no one has to put words in your mouth -- your life and presence on USENET are ugly enough without embellishment.

Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson

"Theodore A. Kaldis" 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 know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

The Dick-suckin' Chicks are toast.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the Holy Spirit to lead me into all the truth and righteousness.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com

Ronni said...

Not as long as Ted has poofing privileges!

ken said...

It didn't, Ronni. Worse yet, they have actually asked Kent to leave!!!

I left this post, which probably won't last much longer:

Case Insider wrote:

Furthermore, Kent, you have no credibility. You are a windbag who claims to be a lot of things that you are proven not to be. What you are is a low-class (excuse the pun) burglar who will be on probation for the next several years. We don't need your kind here.

It appears as if petulance has finally overtaken candor and free debate. What did it take-- less than a week? Kent was asking fair questions, for which there appear to be no answer. The real test of your commitment to free speech is when you address the speech you hate.

Stick around Ken, maybe we can finally show you a few things.

Suffice it to say that you've already shown me a lot -- and not a lot of it becomes you. Banning Kent shows me that you fear the weakness of your own views. I will leave you with a sage caution from a wiser court. (If you ever need me, I'll be over at Loretta's/CG's blog, where content-based censorship of on-topic discussion is not practiced.)

"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. [...]

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression."

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-77 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring.)

loretta said...

Thank you for that quote. It is relevant not only to this discussion, but to the country as we know it right now.

I won't get into that conversation in here, but many of you know what I'm referring to.

As far as "free speech" in a biased venue like the Kaldis Blob, I know that there is no point in debating them.

They are like the Peterson apologists who debated the case long after a jury of Scott's peers deemed him guilty as charged and sentenced him to death.

The Peterson family has published a web site where they challenge readers to prove Scott's guilt, listing a laundry list of things they deemed conflicting, unproven or illogical.

That this is ridiculous and futile is not argued; that they will not overcome their denial is unfortunate and a valuable waste of time and energy.

So it is with the Brown/Kaldis contingency that refuse to see anything Brown did as demonstrating he murdered Lauren. When challenged to support their reasoning, they retreat into ad hominem attack, name-calling and discrediting the source.

So, what's the point? You won't see me arguing with them on any turf, either here or there. They are a waste of energy and time.

Eventually, readers will realize that and grow bored with the same tedious arguments and pseudo-canonization of St. Cameron.

loretta said...

Besides, that picture of Opie Taylor...er...Cam Brown holding Lauren on the top border of the comment section gives me the willies.

I can't bear to look at it.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Ken wrote:
It didn't, Ronni. Worse yet, they have actually asked Kent to leave!!!

That shouldn't come as a surprise. I was asking questions they couldn't answer. At least not honestly. If they were to do so, they would have to admit the evidence shows Cameron is far more likely to have murdered Lauren than not.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:
As far as "free speech" in a biased venue like the Kaldis Blob, I know that there is no point in debating them.

With the Kaldis family, free speech means agreeing with them 100% of the time. So much for the claim that they wanted both sides of story. Gee, a Kaldis lie? Who would've thought it.

Wayne Delia said...

We had a disruption of DSL service here at home, and after about 36 hours I'm back online.

Toad's back! The odd thing, though, is that (assuming he's not "Case Insider," as Case Insider has denied s/he's not him), Toad's few posts have very little, if anything, mostly nothing, to do with the subject matter. He's been badly stung by all the events listed in the post of Wednesday the 23rd in this blog, which, if he had any, completely undermined his credibility. Any questions to that effect are "poofed" on his new blog, and I notice that Kent Wills was unceremoniously asked to leave because the new blog was intended to be a "fact-free" zone where the silent, anonymous majority could hold hands, sing "Kum-Bah-Yah", and hide in terror from the realities of the situation.

A few stats just for the hell of it: As of the time I am posting this comment, there have been 206 comments attached to the post of Tuesday, August 22. I counted as accurately as I could, but one or two posts may have slipped between the cracks in a wash between the two sides.

"Pro-Cam" posts:
(Anonymous:) 130
(Identified:) 32

"Anti-Cam" posts:
(Anonymous:) 10
(Identified:) 34

The comments on Ted's blog are running 78.64% favorable (to Cam's plight), and 21.36% unfavorable.

Of the favorable comments, 80.25% are anonymous, and 19.75% identified (posters like "BO", "Cat", "Theodore A. Kaldis", "Gia", and "MistyTX").

Of the unfavorable comments, 22.73% are anonymous ("visitor"), and 19.75% identified (Ken, Kent Wills, Loretta).

Ken pointed out quite correctly that if any of this Monday-morning quarterbacking and assorted whinging about injustice and conspiracies has any merit, it needed to have been brought up in the trial, instead of blogged by third-hand anonymous posters.

I'm reasonably certain that Patty Kaldis is "Case Insider," using this blog as a venting mechanism, and Toad is doing the bulk of anonymous commenting for the "Pro-Cam" side. Blogging might be a new thrill for Toad, who can now make any dissenting opinions magically disappear. He has explicitly identified himself on only three posts which had little or nothing to do with the Camoron Brown trial, which reinforces my theory that he's waaay too embarrassed to directly confront any of his trial delusions that were demolished during the first trial.

The second trial is probably going to be much psychologically worse on the K&K Twins.

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

Well, that'll teach me to cut and paste from the calculator.

The "Anti-Cam" statistics break down to 22.73% anonymous (mostly from "visitor"), and 77.27% identified as either Ken, Kent, or Loretta.

WMD

Ronni said...

Sounds about right, Wayne. I haven't posted over there, except maybe once, right in the beginning. I know I thought about it, but don't feel like going back to see if I did.

I thing Cameron, with his beetle brows and shadowed eyes, seems very intimidating in the pictures of him with Lauren.

ken said...

Here's another post to the KaldisBlog that is unlikely to survive Ted's poofing privilege:

(After corresponding with Patty, I will give this one more go.)

Case Insider wrote:

Kent came here slamming Ted - calling him a liar.

Unfortunately, that's a little like calling a fish a swimmer; the list of Ted's lies, half-truths, and unreasonably parsimonious statements is a staggering one. But it is relevant to the question here, inasmuch as Ted has made a number of egregiously and demonstrably false accusations regarding this case -- floating a gaggle of fanciful conspiracy theories concerning Team Hum, which have invariably been devoid of substance -- and Kent's perceptive questions strike at the heart of the matter.

Any debate we might have regarding the relative merits of expert witness testimony can only occur in a vacuum unless and until the transcripts of same are made available to us. Ditto, any meaningful discussion of the autopsy report and the propriety of the purported redactions, unless we know the contents of the motions in limine -- and quite frankly, I don't think we are likely to see those any time soon. But what we can tackle is the one question virtually certain to never be touched upon at trial: why the powers-that-be would be so keen to prosecute a humble stevedore without cause, as you so fervently allege.

To say that Ted has lied (or re-told lies, if you want to parse this one overly closely) is not an insult; it is simply the truth. And yes, it's relevant. By way of example, Ted asserted (attributing it to an unnamed source) that Hum was prosecuting Cam because he wanted to put it on his resume for a fast-approaching election. Problem is, Hum wasn't running for office, a little factoid I uncovered in a two-minute search. (To our Bible-wielding friend, I would ask: Where is the propriety in repeating gossip?) For any who care, Wayne Delia has done a consistently stellar job of exposing Ted's lies and hypocrisy on Usenet; google his name and Ted in misc.legal to see what I mean.

We ran into the same roadblock with regards to the alleged Rancho Palos Verdes Conservancy Theory. The fatal problem with this one was that tort claims have a statute of limitations, and by the time Cam was arrested, the statute had run on any wrongful death claim he might once have had. (I note for the record that the law has changed, but that the change was not predictable, as it occurred at the CASCt level some time afterward.) Besides, it was presumptively an insurance company problem, which isn't something that is wont to get public officials' panties in a bunch. Cam could do nothing to hurt them, and they knew it ... but that didn't seem to stop Ted.

Over the months on USENET, Ted kept floating these increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories, implicating virtually everyone who has touched this case this side of Vladimir Putin. Yet, he wouldn't call them conspiracy theories, which was at best unduly parsimonious. Finally, we got him to concede that everyone associated with the prosecution was basically just doing his or her job, essentially extinguishing all his fanciful claims regarding the Bilderbergers. :-)

What's left? Upon hearing the 9-1-1 tape in its entirety, I can see why the State might have prosecuted Cam for murder. The evidence, when seen in a light reasonably favorable to the prosecution, seems sufficient to warrant conviction on capital murder charges with a special circumstance of lying in wait. And it's *not* like LA County has a dearth of murders to investigate; cases like this barely made the news when I lived there. (Contrast this to JonBenet Zoo happening in our backyard -- on the scale of sheer weirdness, this case doesn't even come close. :-) )

I can see why they prosecuted -- understanding as I do that the typical police investigation is nothing like what you see on C.S.I. -- without resorting to some shadowy conspiracy. But that, in itself, doesn't show that a shadowy conspiracy doesn't exist; there are a wealth of oddities which frankly tend to point to Bush Administration involvement in 9/11. The question here is, therefore, much the same as the question there: Is there enough evidence to support the conclusion that undue influence was brought to bear, thereby resulting in an unjust prosecution?

At this point, your audience has been treated to accusations that both Shannon Farren and Denise Nix have been 'shilling' for the prosecution, and that Judge Arnold has been more pro-prosecution than he normally is (I have looked at the appellate record, and found him as heavily on the side of the prosecution in those cases). My questions here are obvious: Who would have a special interest in seeing Cam locked up for life, and WHY???

You will understand my skepticism on this point. Everyone complains of this kind of persecution, including Geragos' latest high-profile client (Scott Peterson). Most claims to this effect are false, and rest upon abject ignorance of the law; more than a few are true. As I see it, you have to come up with something more than a few bad rulings (they happen in every case, and are almost never grounds for reversal upon appeal). Specifically, where is the "H-bomb-class" evidence Ted promised to have unleashed at trial? (Near as I can tell, it's Preparation-H-class.)

As for Kent being a burglar, I received a postcard from him while he was vacationing in Aruba -- quite a feat, for a multiple felon on probation. Most countries don't let our felons in without a fight; the only reason George W. Bush can even get into Canada is that he is our pResident (if you have a DUI, don't bother applying). Kent's explanation for the Iowa records to the contrary -- that he "planted" them, with the help of some friends, to trap a stalker -- is plausible, but patently stupid when you think about it. If you are consistent, you'll slap Ted down for his ad hominem attack on both of us, but as long as Ted has poofing privileges, this will never be a truly fair forum.

As a former mortician with a Ph.D. psychologist wife to bounce questions off of, Kent has a skill set relevant to this case. Ted hates opponents who know more than he does. :-)

loretta said...

The observations by Ted's co-posters in Usenet give readers in here a nice little window into why he would be doing this at all - that is, staking life, reputation (as it is), health and hearth for a man he hardly knew, certainly didn't know for a long time, and who was accused and currently incarcerated awaiting a second trial for murder. But not just any garden-variety murder -- the murder of a little child.

Think about it. Wouldn't it be prudent to stay under the radar, keep mum about what you think is going on, the so-called injustice of this case, the alleged impropriety of the DAs and others involved and do what you thought was going to amend that situation?

Don't you think actions speak much louder than words on a blog or obsessive repetition of unsubstantiated allegations on Usenet?

If you step back and pretend you don't know anything about this case or anything about the people posting in here or at the KK Blob, you would have to really wonder about Patty Brown and Ted Kaldis.

What kind of nuts are they? There is something seriously wrong with that picture.

If they had a firing brain cell between them, an ounce of dignity, a shred of pride, a modicum of integrity, or a scintilla of SHAME, they would never have (and certainly not now) be publicly commenting about this case.

I am torn between pity and shadenfreude with regard to the Twinkies. They really could have made this a lot easier and spared themselves so much embarrassment, but No.....

This is Ted Kaldis's claim to fame. After all these years on Usenet spouting informed or uninformed opinions, prejudices, prostelyzing platitudes, sanctimonious spew, hilarious hypocrisy, malignant misogyny...and I'll spare you any more alliteration since you get the point....this was the ONE thing in the world that would give him the "upper hand."

Because he was closely connected to the defendant in a murder case, he FINALLY had an "inside track."

This was the one and only time, probably, that he could claim that about ANY subject and be believed.

This is Ted's 15 minutes. He is too sick and myopic to see how much harm it has caused him, his sister and his poor, falsely accused BIL Cam Brown.

If you never thought GerEgo was incompetent before (despite the plethora of evidence), you have to believe he's a total idiot now to permit the Kaldis Klan to publish a blog at this stage of the game.

If he doesn't shut them up, he's incompetent and should be fired.

Ronni said...

He may not know. If I were them, I wouldn't tell Geragoesthemoney! Both Ted and Patty seem to be the kind of people who balk at any sort of control, external or internal. His incessant blathering, her courtroom antics, all point to people who have no discipline at all.

It makes you wonder how they were raised.

IMO

Wayne Delia said...

Ted Kaldis is a mutant freak, according to Ted Kaldis.

One might think that's an unnecessary ad hominem insult, but as it turns out, it's not.

Last night I sorted and categorized each of 206 total comments on the latest post on the K&K Blob.

At 4:12AM this morning, Ted posted the following comment: "And, oh, one more thing: you can count the total number of posts here that have been poofed on the fingers of one hand."

At the time I am writing this comment, there are now 194 comments attached to the current post on the K&K Blob.

The difference between 206 comments analyzed last night, and 194 current comments attached to the same post, is 12.

According to his own claim, Ted is able to "count the total number of posts here that have been poofed" on the fingers of one hand.

That's 12 fingers Ted has on at least one of his hands.

Those kinds of physical anomalies are generally associated with mutations caused by exposure to excessive levels of radiation, or congenital defects due to the mother's drug use (for example, thalidymide).

Either way, it will help to explain some of the strange lines of reasoning Ted uses.

WMD

Ronni said...

Wayne, I think I love you! Even though you absolutely need a hobby that gets you out of the house more.

However, I am very glad to know he has mutant tendencies, as he has surmised that the infamous pic of me in the hot rollers indicates that I am some sort of alien.

It also might explain his ability to flip off so many people at the same time.

Wayne Delia said...

Yet another priceless turd from the wit and wisdom of Ted Kaldis: This is a jaw-dropper, a true head-scratcher. It was posted as a comment at 4:11AM, probably after a long night of heavy drinking.

"With regard to the "H-bomb" evidence -- it was never used. Geragos felt that it wasn't necessary at the time."

This is incredible, even for Ted. Why would anyone in their right mind (OK, well, that's probably the answer) hire one of the most expensive attorneys available (yes, I know, there are more expensive attorneys than Geragoesthemoney, but the legal bill's gotta be six figures with the first figure not being a 1) who, having "H-bomb-class" evidence available to him, chooses not to present it at trial? The result, of course, was a mistrial, with 2 votes for Murder 1, 8 votes for Murder 2, and 2 votes for Manslaughter - evidently, there were no "Not Guilty" votes at all.

Wouldn't that be grounds for an appeal in case of a future (probably inevitable) guilty verdict of some form? It would seem to be automatic, intentional, "de facto" negligence of legal representation. The lawyer allegedly had "H-bomb-class" exculpatory evidence, chose not to use it, and in the first trial, didn't earn even a single "Not Guilty" vote. For this, he was paid possibly several hundred thousand dollars???

If I was Ted (and imagine how thankful I am that I'm NOT Ted), I suppose after having Patty lay out that kind of lawyer money, especially with Geragos's liens on the house where Ted lives, I'd be fairly committed to any kind of hope or wishful thinking that the strategy of holding back the H-Bomb Evidence was, in some bizarre manner, a Good Idea. He can continue to pretend that there's some sort of "Mother of All Bombs" weapon in the defense's artillery which he is privy to as a key member of Team Cam, a true "Case Insider", which none of the rest of us knows about. It may or may not surface in the second trial, with no explanation of why it wasn't presented at the first trial, resulting only in several more months of jail time for Bubba's Fiancee, and potentially another six-figure lawyer bill for Deep Pockets Patty.

On the K&K Blob, Ted does not see any need to explain this situation, which is functionally equivalent to conceding there's no explanation. I'd be really interested in understanding exactly what it was that he thought was the "H-Bomb Class Evidence" and why it wasn't put to use in the first trial.

WMD

Ronni said...

However, nothing sensible is going to come out of Ted's mouth.

loretta said...

There are at least three explanations, but three will suffice:

1. It wasn't "H-Bomb Class."

2. It wasn't "evidence" and thus inadmissible.

3. It was a lie.

CountryGirl said...

I'll choose door #3.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:
There are at least three explanations, but three will suffice:

1. It wasn't "H-Bomb Class."

As I've stated, it's black cat firecracker class at best. And I think I'm being very kind by stating it has ANY expolsive properties at all.

2. It wasn't "evidence" and thus inadmissible.

Then why wouldn't Ted have said so, rather than use the line I came up with month's ago,
"With regard to the "H-bomb" evidence -- it was never used. Geragos felt that it wasn't necessary at the time."
?

This is funny, really. If there was such evidence, and Geragos failed to use it, then he is in A LOT of trouble. Having evidence that PROVES the accused is innocent and not using it is a SERIOUS violation of ethics. If what Ted is claiming is true, Geragos is facing a lot of trouble. Anyone report Marc for this violation yet?

3. It was a lie.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a Winner!

loretta said...

Why is Cam Brown paying a lawyer (especially an expensive hot-shot like GerEgo) when obviously his "Case Insiders", wife and BIL know more about the case than GerEgo?

Why didn't GerEgo bring up 75% of the so-called exonerating evidence that the KK are posting at the Mr. Innocent Blob?

Why wasn't the exonerating (heh) geological evidence, the history of California geologists, the nature and physical geography of landslides, the debunking of Dr. Hayes (who has more letters after his name and credentials than I can list) and his assistant's test?

If the Brown Apologists know more about physics, geology, civil law, tort action, childrearing and accounting than the $500/hr lawyer they hired, why didn't they try the case instead?

Seriously.

(Can you see Patty and Ted Kaldis scurrying to libraries, web sites, archives, court houses, etc. building up their case and handing Mark Geragos their eagerly printed work product...and GerEgo says, "Thank you very much" and promptly throws it in the nearest dustbin.)

Kids, there's a reason that GerEgo didn't argue the points you are desperately trying to make in the new blob.

And even though I think GerEgo is a pretty big idiot, he wouldn't overlook all those amazing* points you made if they were in the least bit salient, probative or useful.

ken said...

I couldn't agree more, Loretta. Mark Geragos' first duty is to his client and if possible, to get his keister out of the can. If this H-bomb-class evidence exists and is as potent as claimed here, Geragos should have leaned on Hum an hour after he learned of it. He has the kind of star power he'd need to get the media to notice; to say that he didn't use it on "strategic" grounds buries the needle on my industrial-strength B.S. meter.

Cam came incredibly close to being convicted of second-degree murder, and if the prosecution has as much 'juice' behind them as you claim, there is NO WAY that his conviction would have been overturned.

The dirtiest little ‘secret’ of American jurisprudence is that appellate judges routinely fabricate facts and fracture the law in order to achieve outcomes they desire. As Professor Monroe Freedman, one of the nation’s leading scholars on judicial ethics, observes:

"Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material authorities, judicial opinions that cover up these things with no-publication and no-citation rules."

Professor Karl Llewellyn describes this ubiquitous but illegitimate precedent-avoidance technique as

"manhandling ... the facts of the pending case, or of the precedent, so as to make it falsely appear that the case in hand falls under a rule which in fact it does not fit, or especially that it falls outside of a rule which would lead in the instant case to a conclusion the court cannot stomach."

When judges cook the books, the odor is unmistakable. As Llewellyn observes, “[s]uch action leaves the particular point moderately clear: the court has wanted [the result] badly enough to lie to get it.” [citations available upon request]

Geragos knows this as well as I do, and entrusting Cam's fate to an appellate court would have been suidical for him. The press would have read his complaint here as Peterson-class carping, and he'd get exactly zero traction there. As it is nothing short of insane to use it at the first possible opportunity if it is good enough, we can therefore conclude that the "H-bomb-class" evidence is, at best, Preparation-H-bomb-class.

And it would have been the most delicious of ironies, that Cam's fate could depend upon my success in battling this practice -- a practice Ted insists I should just accept without carping.

ken said...

Team Brown's collective ignorance is simply staggering. From this, we can deduce that either the endless stream of anonymous posters are Cam's old classmates back in "slow class" at Cherry Hills, or they are all Ted. "No one said he was a bad person!" This is a big point for them; the fact that the CA Evidence Code says they can't present that kind of 'bad person' evidence unless Geragos presents the goody-two-shoes stuff is completely lost on them.

You'd think they could find one person who could understand simple high school physics, with at least two engineers on the team.

They may even have good arguments, but they are so mired in their absurd ones that it might be hard to find the gems beneath their mountains of Greeley-class excreta. Hell, I can see mistakes in the trial without their prompting.

loretta said...

I prefer to look past the clutter and obfuscation and stick to the simplest, most reasonable explanations for what is really going on.

1. LA Sheriffs would not go to any trouble to prosecute a guy like Brown unless there was compelling information that he did it.

2. The DA's office has plenty to do without trying a "turkey."

3. I don't care who you are, you are not going to get a county DA to spend manpower, resources and risk ticking off a judge to falsely prosecute an innocent man. (This is in response to the specious allegations that Sarah's mother had something to do with this ever getting prosecuted because of some peripheral relationship with Hum.)

4. If your buddy, Mark, really had anything that would have helped to reduce the charges, make a deal, set bail or (gasp) get Cam sprung as a free man, WHAT IN THE WORLD was he doing letting Cam rot in jail for 2 years?

The entire premise that this is some kind of conspiracy and that there is exonerating evidence or that the charges are trumped up are, frankly, simply absurd.

And impossible. And nobody with even a passing acquaintance with how trials work, the process of vetting they go through, and the expense and time they take would know that the KKs are simply nuts.

loretta said...

The two of them (Kaldis Kooks) are Kontrol Freaks to the Nth degree.

I won't be surprised if they sue Geragos if Brown is convicted. Can you even imagine having them as clients?

ken said...

From what I've been able to determine, Patty seems perfectly reasonable -- if you factor out the incredible stress she is under and the rage she feels. It's really not her fault. Unless you've been there, you should cut her some slack. I've been there in a sense, and that's why I'm inclined to.

Ted, otoh, is competely certifiable. He's always had serious impulse control problems, and his psychoses are many and deep.

loretta said...

I respectfully disagree and not just because Patty joined Muttville.

I have been in contact with someone who knows her and Cam rather well, and I learned that Patty had a lot more to do with this than she's willing to admit.

However, since she's not on trial, there is no reason to cite any anecdotal evidence.

She is not ok in any way.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Ken wrote:
From what I've been able to determine, Patty seems perfectly reasonable -- if you factor out the incredible stress she is under and the rage she feels. It's really not her fault.

...

I honestly feel a bit sorry for her. She fell in love with Cam, married him, then he did this to her. Even if Cameron didn't actaully throw Lauren off the cliff, he is responsible for her death. Sadly, Cameron isn't even able to acknoledge that.

She's shown signs of mild paranoia (someone's gaslighting her -- Someone hits a dog and she thinks that person was looking for her house). Whether this is a normal state for her, or something brought on by the stress she's under is something we can't *know*. However, given that she and Ted grew up under the same conditions, and we know how whacked out Ted is, I think it may the norm.

Ted, otoh, is competely certifiable. He's always had serious impulse control problems,

Sounds like about 95% of Usenet postsers. And yes, I include myself in that percentage.

and his psychoses are many and deep.

Ted does have more than a few issues that should be addresses with the help of a profesional mental health care worker.

loretta said...

You must know that one of the anonymi over at the KK blob is none other than our old pal, "Just Amazed," aka "InteresTED," aka "Misty" aka "Mistyblue" aka "OpinionaTED" among other nicknames she uses.

I don't know why she bothers to hide behind "anonymous" - I recognize her patronizing tone, excess punctuation, and Flat Earth Society mentality anywhere.

Capt Joe said...

Goth Dyleski guilty.

loretta said...

Thanks, Joe. If any trial would have a hung jury, it might have been that one. Go figger. California again.

loretta said...

According to one of CB's friends, CB met Patty at a surf shop parking lot. She was having problems with her car and he helped her get it started or fixed or something.

They got married after a whirlwind courtship.

If Patty or Ted took the stand, it would be immediately obvious that Ted is unstable and delusional and that Patty is a terrible liar.

Ted didn’t spend any time with Lauren. You could probably not measure it in hours.

If Cam hadn't met Patty, according to this source, Cam probably would have just become a part-time dad, maybe took off and became a deadbeat, but he would never have gone after custody.

Speculation is that Patty combines her engineering with magic to affect reality.

Cam's friend thinks Patty bewitched him, because she was not a "hottie" like his other girlfriends and was completely different in looks, personality and was much older than he.

Maybe she gave him a love potion or put a curse on him.

They married so fast, most (all?) of Cam's friends were shocked.

If she used black magic against Sarah, it obviously boomeranged.

Part of this is Patty's fault, according to several of Cam's old friends.

loretta said...

Bonds' Trainer in Contempt, Prison-Bound

*latest headline for GerEgo's current client.

Another success story. heh

loretta said...

This is an example of the kind of Make-Believe dialogue going on in the KK Blob:

Quote from (probably Just Amazed, aka Jeanne):

Very interesting comment Cat. But, the bottom line is Hayes was completely discredited at trial. Yet, we continue to discuss it as if it means something. And the prosecutor is going to push it one more time, hoping he'll succeed to snow the next jury!
Anonymous


"Completely discredited at trial."

Alrighty, where is she getting this? From the KK twins? I know that she wasn't in the courthouse and would not have the transcripts, since that would impede her fiction spinning.

Think about that statement: "completely discredited" and "snow the next jury."

I have to shake my head in disbelief that people are capable of that kind of delusion. Nutcases, all of them.

ken said...

Another post that won't last long on the KaldisBlog:

Beware of Greeks running blogs!!!!

Case Insider wrote:
If anyone has trouble sticking to the issues and engages in any kind of attack on another person, that post will be deleted. No discussion. No questions asked or answered. No questioning blog admin about that decision. Stick with the issues or be deleted.

Ted Kaldis wrote:
Did you go visit the Boulder Public Library today, Ken?

Several disturbing things about that post:

First off, it appears that our corpulent crackpot control freak, Stalker Ted, is trying to stalk me again, with all the skill and aplomb [guffaw] he has demonstrated in the past. But more disturbing is the fact that Ted is tracking everyone's IP -- which means if you say anything that is not in support of Cam, you will be tracked, even if you want to speak on an anonymous basis.

Second, it tends to show that Ted is "Case Insider." If "Case Insider" was a person if his or her word, s/he will remove Ted as the admin, and guarantee free and open debate. But do you think that is EVER going to happen? Lord Acton's aphorism applies.

There's a delicious irony in all this: At essence, they are complaining about being on the business end of a perceived abuse of power, but when they have power, they abuse it themselves. In short, Cam deserves to be where he is, because as Ted so cryptically put it, "that's the way the world works." :-)

Moreover, Ted can't complain, because he preaches that we should simply accept it. Tell Cam to grab those ankles, Ted!!!

Anonymous said...

I understand how this case has really touched so many poeple, and brought the best out in some and the worse in others, simply becuase of the nature of it. Today, I ask you to rest on any attacks and stop and think how instead of Sarah organising Laurens 10th birthday party we will be gathering together, again, thinking about this precious little girl that we lost back on November 8th 2000.
Please light a candle and remember those peircing blue eyes that were full of hope, to commemorate Lauren's 10th birthday.
Thank you for all your support for Sarah during this time.
AJ

Skye said...

Happy Birthday to Lauren! Rest in peace little angel.

Sarah, I'm so sorry for your loss and am wishing with every part of my being that you will eventually get justice for Lauren.

You are so dignified. Bless you!

Skye said...

I wish someone would tell that blithering idiot, Ted, that Cam - Brown - is - a - NOBODY!

Nobody is going to advance their career, by framing a p*sswilly, bagage handler, that hasn't even made Headline News.

Idiots must stick together, by the looks of it! Geez

Mark, Ted, Patty and Cam.

loretta said...

The KK Klub is posting the defense case - their version is rather more organized than GerEgo's was in court (why do they even have him?!) but it's still a perfect example of what I described in a previous entry as a "version of the truth."

If the event cannot be scientifically proven beyond a doubt (and what, pray tell, can?), and "nobody was there to see it" -- why didn't Brown take the stand and tell those jurors what happened?

If he were innocent, he would be out of jail by now. No way would Geragos let him rot and not spring him by now. It's just not even possible.

Despite the vehement protests and long-winded arguments of the Kooky Kaldis Klan, their version of events has yet to exonerate Brown, and it wasn't even convincing enough for a single juror to vote to acquit.

As far as the anonymous statements about the jurors votes, I'd like to know how this person has this information? Did he/she interview or poll the jurors personally? Why would they speak to anyone from the Brown camp at all?

What's the likelihood that this person would be privy to what went on in the deliberation room?

Slim to none.

googleid said...

Happy Birthday sweet girl! You, and a million other little children who have been hurt by those they should have been able to trust, are in our hearts forever.

Sarah, my mother's heart feels for you, if my emotions/thoughts could sail through the air, you'd feel my hug. Lauren lives in your heart and in your memories.

CountryGirl said...

I sent our personal hugs to Sarah today via a friend.

I only hope her sweet memory will bring smiles today to those who knew and loved her so much.

loretta said...

In honor of Lauren's 10th birthday, a small tribute above.^^

ken said...

"You can't say those TRUE things about me! I'm BANNING you!!!"

The Kaldis Flying Circus is getting funnier and funnier....

CountryGirl said...

Ken, I emailed you something.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Kaldis a friend of Doug Gilliland, the kook who stalked Chuck Smith?

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!