Friday, April 20, 2007

Recklessly Risking Absurdity

People in the throes of blind rage or emotional overload risk absurdity without thought. We have all been in the position where we say ridiculous, unsupported things in the heat of an argument. Afterwards, when we regroup, we may apologize or feel a sense of shame for having made such reckless comments. If we are somewhat mentally stable and emotionally grounded, we may reconstruct our arguments and accept the fact that our reality is not necessarily shared by others.

In the case of Lauren Key's untimely death (that was likely murder, in my opinion and that of the prosecutors, law enforcement and the members of the jury of the first trial), the Kaldis Kooks - Ted and his sister, Patty (the star-struck twins as it were), persist in recklessly risking absurdity long after the passion of any given conflict has passed. Months after threads on Usenet have become buried in newer topics; years after the sting of Cam's paternity suit and rejection by his lover; years after the shock of his arrest for murder and the subsequent humiliation of his prosecution; and now almost a year since the first murder trial where twelve people could not agree to the degree of murder - Ted and Patty (and their sock puppets) continue to eschew the facts, peddle myth, impugn the reputations of everyone involved in the prosecution, insult the only remaining people in Cyberspace who bother to debate with them, and defame (with ad hom attacks) anyone who dares disagree with their version of events that includes more than an alarming measure of paranoia.

Yes, that was a very long sentence. Sue me.

Among a plethora of examples of the Kaldis Reckless Absurdity, let's go back in time to the early days of my involvement in this case in July 2005. I was fresh from the Peterson case with more than a passing acquaintance with Mark Geragos's modus operandi. Admittedly, my interest in the Brown case was originally sparked by Geragos's involvement. I never pretended otherwise.

However, after learning more about the case, my sympathy for the victim and her mother became much more personal. After all, I had a daughter the same age as Lauren Key, and her name is even Lauren. I was in Sarah Key's position where I had a baby without marrying the father; I've had to chase child support. I've had to negotiate visitation and custody issues; I've had to deal with a pathologically jealous replacement female who is obsessed with me and my daughter and has made a bizarre career out of defaming me and attempting to harm me or take my daughter from me.

Needless to say, the parallels were eerily significant.

Meanwhile, knowing my way around the custody and child support block, so to speak, many of Ted's (and later Patty's) claims about this case smacked of total absurdity. When I presented the problems I saw with the alleged custody suit, Ted aligned himself with a group of nutcase detractors and conspired with them to publicly defame me rather than argue the merits of his sister's alleged maternal superiority to Sarah Key. Needless to say, this proved to be their strategy to this day.

Similarly, their claims of love and devotion to this child were belied by their actions, the reality of their involvement in Lauren's life (certainly Ted's involvement was peripheral at best), and their obvious, collossal ignorance of all things related to a 4-year old girl.

Sure, I can trot out the fact that I have first-hand experience with three 4-year old daughters, and that I was once a 4-year old girl (which only half of the Kaldis Klan can claim, albeit a half century ago), and that I know quite a bit about "shared parenting" laws and how visitation works and that Patty Kaldis had no legal standing when it came to Lauren. I also know a little bit about voodoo and witchcraft and recognize the paraphernalia when I see it. I also know more than I need to about Christianity and the Bible, one of Ted's most absurd references among a cornucopia of hypocrisy.

Rather than bullet point the countless incidents of absurdity demonstrated by the Kaldis Kooks, long after such argument would be excusable by passion, outrage, ignorance or temporary insanity, I believe it's safe to conclude that most (if not all) of the arguments, theories, accusations and incredible presumptions postied by the Kooks over the past 2 years (and I'm sure prior, but I wasn't around for that) could be categorized as Reckless Absurdity.

In other words, not only are most (if not all) of their statements absurd on their face - they are recklessly absurd: easily proven false, totally without any substantive proof, unrealistic to the point of ludicrousness, blatant lies, or just plain stupid.

Thus, not worth much of anyone's time or trouble to debate. Organizing my spice cabinet is a better use of my time.

200 comments:

Ronni said...

Ain't it the truth!

Here's hoping the results of the next trial will be conclusive.

Anonymous said...

Has a second trial date been set?

Anonymous said...

I’m acquainted with Cam. I even saw him and Sarah together once in early 1996. I don’t know Ted or Patty other than things I’ve read as a result of the trial.

I believe the charges against Cam are likely (and sadly) true. At any rate, they clearly are worthy questions of fact for a court.

Much interest in this case arises from people’s attitudes toward Ted. Ted has earned a big share of the hostility toward him, but nowhere near all of it from what I can tell. It appears that much of the animus toward Ted is because of his stated Christianity and his politics.

While hatred of Christianity is a popular, powerful and rapidly growing phenomenon, no one does well to associate with bigots.

Those interested in finding the truth in this case would do well to approach it earnestly and with reasonably clean motives.

CountryGirl said...

The second trial will be sometime in July. I assume Geragos will be CB's attorney as I have not seen anything to the contrary.

loretta said...

Ted plays the Christian card all the time, not us. I think I can safely speak for the rest of us that our opinion of Ted has little to do with whatever faith he espouses. He merely sets himself up as a hypocrite time and again. It's amusing but rather tedious.

I, for one, couldn't care less what religion Ted "practices," if he indeed really practices anything. His actions speak so loudly, we can't hear anything he has to say about religion.

If Ted and Patty had left me alone and not deliberately sought to assasinate my character, and if they had not overtly participated in a campaign designed to malign me and harm my child by assisting in some phantasmal custody battle (phantasmal being that it did not actually exist in real life), I would be much more inclined to treat their righteous indignation with some sympathy.

As it is, I have neither tea nor sympathy for them. They made their proverbial beds, now they can lie in them.

"Lie" used in both definitions.

Crash Test Dummy said...

Second trial date is in July? Have the April pre-trial motions been held yet?

WMD

Crash Test Dummy said...

Delia here - I am using my Google account, so it'll appear with my associated nickname "Crash Test Dummy" (which is what they called me in karate class several years ago).

Several of us are experts, or at least very well versed, in different areas and aspects of the case and the surrounding discussion in cyberspace. Ken Smith is a legal wizard, from whom I've learned much. My area of interest and expertise involve a skeptical view of Christianity. I'm an atheist, but spent about a dozen years as an active born-again Christian in the late 1960's through the early 1980's. I learned quite a bit about the Bible. In these meta-discussions about the Camoron Brown case (I now routinely spell Cameron "Camoron"), I am able to quickly point out the hypocrisies and mistakes generally made by Ted. There have been several different gaffes of various levels of embarrassment and ridicule aimed at Ted, but my personal favorite is when he uses asterisks to mask vowels within curse words, which begs the question of whether Ted thinks his omniscient God is fooled by the asterisks. Either Ted's God is an idiot, or else Ted masked letters in words other than the curse words he intended, for how would it be for a true Christian to curse as he wants us to think he's cursing? The reasons for doing so are obvious: Ted wants us to think he's a rough, tough, blue-streak-swearing sonovabitch, without actually swearing, so that he can later play the pious Christian card.

So it's not really a case of attacking Ted for his Christian beliefs; rather, it's a case of attacking Ted for his hypocrisy, of which his professed Christian beliefs are a part. Having that hypocrisy discussed absolutely drives Ted nuts - even more nuts than he already is.

WMD

Ronni said...

To say we bash Ted for being a Christian would be similar to saying we hate Osama bin Laden because he is a Moslem.

His religion is the least of our worries, except that he does such egregious things in its name.

Ronni said...

To say we bash Ted for being a Christian would be similar to saying we hate Osama bin Laden because he is a Moslem.

His religion is the least of our worries, except that he does such egregious things in its name.

ken said...

From the KOOOOOOOK Blog:

Ted: Uhhh ... NO! Cam and Sarah did what fine upstanding Christian young people ought not do, and that on the very first night they met (and met in a BAR, no less). (This even came out in court testimony.) They HARDLY knew each other. And what Cam did NOT know at the time was that Sarah was an illegal alien, having long overstayed a tourist visa, and was living and working here, looking for a way to be able to stay legally. Do the math.

Okay, so Cam was a total dumbf*ck. They obviously hung out for more than a one-night stand (which is arguably longer than any of your known relationships since the Reagan administration), and Cam kept seeing her. And why not? Unlike Patty, she was an obvious hottie.

So, why don't YOU come out and admit it: When Cam could chase Baywatch Babes, he did. But when the child-support started killing him, he married Old Maid Patty, who was frumpy, fat, and fifty, according to Shannon Farren. Cam traded in the young hotties because he had to. Patty was his meal ticket. As you put it, "do the math."

By your own standards, Ted. If you can trash all of your opponents with ad hominem attacks, it is only fair that you endure the same treatment. And don't tell me that Patty isn't fair game; it's not like Sarah is here to defend herself from your libelous rants.

Anonymous said...

The acquaintance again.

I posted the bit about anti-Christian attitudes largely because of this sentence from the post “Recklessly Risking Absurdity”: “I also know more than I need to about Christianity and the Bible, one of Ted's most absurd references among a cornucopia of hypocrisy.”

There’s clearly plenty of room for improvement in Ted’s overall credibility. Attacks like the above, though, hurt Ted’s opponents’ credibility more than they hurt his among those who don’t grind the same axes as Ted’s opponents. There are all manner of reckless risks.

As to me not “knowing” whether or not Cameron Brown is guilty, I’ve never claimed to “know” as I wasn’t even in California in November 2000. I know Cameron Brown through a mutual friend. I’ve been around Cameron Brown on several varied occasions starting the 1980s and most recently a few months before Lauren’s death. I’ve seen him act more or less like the humanitarian portrayed in the “Free Cam Brown” site and I’ve seen him ready to brawl over imperceptible slights. I became convinced of Cameron Brown’s guilt by reading Geragos’ 995 Motion, back when that was still online.
When we last discussed it, our mutual friend believed that Cameron might not be guilty of premeditated murder, but almost certainly is guilty of manslaughter. That would place our mutual friend – someone naturally inclined to think the best of him – in line with some of the jurors, if not with Ted and Patty, who have even more inclination to give him every last benefit of the doubt. Through our mutual friend I know quite a few other people who know Cameron Brown better than I do. Unsurprisingly, their opinions about his guilt are mixed.

At any rate, the allegations against Mr. Brown are more plausible than are the various allegations of conspiracy to protect the local government from the minimal property liability they may have faced had the survivors timely filed a claim.

I choose to remain anonymous as there are people on both sides of this controversy who appear to be considerably less stable than the slopes of Inspiration Point.

CountryGirl said...

And what Cam did NOT know at the time was that Sarah was an illegal alien...

And Sarah didn't know Cameron was a baggage handler. He told her he was a pilot for American Airlines.

ken said...

From the KOOOOOOOOOOK Blog:

K: every one of these ad hominem references

Ted: They are NOT "ad hominem", they are FACTS.

K: You have been f*cking the dictionary so long, the pages have stuck together and you don't know what over half the words in the English language mean. Let me help you out with what is an ad hominem argument and what is not:

3P: Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

K: Whether Kent is a garage burglar is logically irrelevant to his observations, even in the off chance that your accusations are true. When you argue in this way, you commit the ad hominem fallacy.

Then, there is your bread-and-butter, the special pleading fallacy:

3P: Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle is a reasonable one. After all, it would not be particularly rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. As an extreme case, it would be very odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5.

K: On the one hand, you can't help but attack everyone who is in any way not favorable to your position, including Sarah (for allegedly trying to get pregnant). Yet, you express umbrage when we point out that the same argument can be used against Cam:

When Cam could chase Baywatch Babes, he did. But when the child-support started killing him, he married Old Maid Patty, who was frumpy, fat, and fifty, according to Shannon Farren. Cam traded in the young hotties because he had to. Patty was his meal ticket. As you put it, "do the math."

All right, Ted, we ARE "doing the math." It's obvious that Patty looks like you with dishwater-grey hair; to be kind, she's no Sarah Key or Loretta Serrano. If we "do the math," we can reasonably conclude that Camma Nicole Brown was looking for a rich sugar-mama, and he wasn't too particular as to who she was. Logically speaking (making allowances for the fact that it is a foreign language to you), why should we "do the math" with Sarah, but not with Cam and Patty?

loretta said...

These areas of fallacious argument (put much more elegantly by Ken than I) are what I am calling "Reckless Absurdity."

Anyone with even a passing aquaintence with logic (the formal kind where these principles are discussed) could see that the Kaldis Klan violate virtually every rule in the book.

They have elevated ad hominem to an art form. There are few, if any, arguments they make that do not assail someone's character (mine, Ken's, Kent's, Hum's, Sarah's, et al), which reveals them as both spiteful and stupid.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), their futile little campaign to discredit me boomeranged on them rather pathetically. My life, since the Cam Brown trial last year, has been enormously happy.

I can afford to offer them my pity, but not much else. I don't find them the least bit interesting. I think Ted should focus instead on writing that screenplay. It would be a more productive use of his time than tilting at windmills.

Besides those of us here who are following the case with a jaundiced eye, who really cares what happens to Cam Brown?

The only reason I'm still on board is because I can't wait to see my buddy, Mark Geragos, try this case a second time with similarly spectacularly incompetent results.

I've got the popcorn ready. After all, my delicate reputation is at stake. heh.

ken said...

Ted's going nuts with the censor's cursor.... :)

Ted: Edited By Siteowner

Fortunately, Ted, I took the liberty of saving all those comments you feel are too close to the mark for anyone else to read, like this telling one:

It's obvious that Patty looks like you with dishwater-grey hair; to be kind, she's no Sarah Key or Loretta Serrano. If we "do the math," we can reasonably conclude that Camma Nicole Brown was looking for a rich sugar-mama, and he wasn't too particular as to who she was. Logically speaking (making allowances for the fact that it is a foreign language to you),

But I'd really like an answer, Ted. Why should we "do the math" with respect to Sarah, but not with respect to your precious Camma Nicole Brown?

Was Shannon Farren right? Is your sister so ugly that she is sought after as a stand-in for horror flicks? Given your remarkable sensitivity regarding this issue, this would have to be the case.

loretta said...

I don't know what Patty Brown looks like, nor do I really care. I do, however, know enough about little girls (having raised 3 of my own) to know that a woman who was childless for 47, 48 years and inherits a step-daughter at age 3 with a man who was a reluctant parent (at best) and a negligent moron (to be kind), had less than a snowball's chance in hell of gaining "full legal custody" of that child.

Her comments toward Sarah were spiteful, ignorant and bitter. She probably never reconciled the idea that her young stud husband (cough) had to have continuous contact with a former lover that looked like Sarah.

I'd like to tell Patty and all the rest of the pathologically jealous mutts out there - Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

hahahaha

The fact is, even if Patty looked like a young Bo Derek, her actions toward Sarah and others involved in this case (never mind her nastiness toward me -- I still wonder if her voodoo didn't backfire on her, and I sure hope she doesn't have cut-out pictures of my face next to some candles in a shoebox under her bed...yikes) is ugly enough in and of itself.

Beauty is as beauty does, KK.

And, thanks for the nice compliment, Ken.

ken said...

More fun from the KOOOOOOOK Blog:

Ted: What have I said about Sarah that is libelous?

Ken:That she was looking to get knocked up to stay in the country.

Ted: Oh, did I really say that?

Here is what you said precisely:

And what Cam did NOT know at the time was that Sarah was an illegal alien, having long overstayed a tourist visa, and was living and working here, looking for a way to be able to stay legally.

Ted: Or did you simply just do the math?

Naaaaahhhh, I've heard you make this argument before, and California permits damages in tort for libel by innuendo.

Ted: If the shoe fits, wear it.

It's obvious that Patty looks like you with dishwater-grey hair; to be kind, she's no Sarah Key or Loretta Serrano. If we "do the math," we can reasonably conclude that Camma Nicole Brown was looking for a rich sugar-mama, and he wasn't too particular as to who she was. Logically speaking (making allowances for the fact that logic is a foreign language to you), he married her for her money, and was obviously exploiting her.

Murder. The shoe fits, and Cam gets to wear the orange jumpsuit....

Your argument, consistently applied.

Crash Test Dummy said...

From the K00K Blob:

Ted: "So let's see ... we can count among your friends a psychotic former drug user who has had a string of failed marriages, a garage burglar and pathological liar, and a former frat boy who hasn't grown up ... okay."

No, it's certainly not "okay". It's quite wrong, at least in the reference to me. I was initiated on December 1, 1979 into Phi Kappa Sigma, a Greek fraternal organization which holds as one of its public maxims, "Once a Phi Kap, always a Phi Kap." Essentially, once initiated, it's harder to get off the alumni rolls of Phi Kappa Sigma than it is to get excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Further, anyone who would refer to a fraternity as a "frat" would also refer to his country as a "cunt".

Ted's just rattled because I pointed out on Usenet that his recent outbursts against Kent Wills were motivated thusly: "Sounds like somebody's pissed off that his baby-killing brother-in-law's high-priced lawyer slapped that somebody on the wrist for prompting the raising of the question of the lawyer's incompetence and malpractice of withholding "H-bomb" caliber evidence claimed to exonerate and vindicate the baby-killer brother-in-law. Sounds like that somebody is you, Toad."

WMD

loretta said...

psychotic

adjective
1. characteristic of or suffering from psychosis

noun
1. a person afflicted with psychosis

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source psychosis (sī-kō'sĭs) Pronunciation Key
Plural psychoses (sī-kō'sēz)
A mental state caused by psychiatric or organic illness, characterized by a loss of contact with reality and an inability to think rationally. A psychotic person often behaves inappropriately and is incapable of normal social functioning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok, just checking to make sure there is no way I could be defined as "psychotic."

No sane person who has even the most peripheral contact with me would ever characterize me as "psychotic."

In fact, most people (and the various shrinks I've had) characterize me as well adjusted and very rational.

As far as being a former drug user? Wayull...gosh...this from someone bragging about 'electric beer.'

I have had such a narrow experience with mood-altering substances, it's hilarious. Yes, I abused something or other, got sober, stayed sober almost 14 years.

That would be considered a SUCCESS STORY, my dear. I am the poster girl for recovery.

As far as the "string of failed marriages" - hey, at least I have had 4 or more guys ASK me to marry them. How many proposals have you gotten, TOAD?

I can't help it if I'm irresistable...and sometimes a tad impulsive. Ahhh, Love.

So, I bailed out. Big deal. I've had library books out longer than my marriages, so what?

At least I know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, baby.

But, that 'psychotic' label won't fit, sweetie.

BTW, when's the last time you had planet-orbiting sex? Ask me about my love life. I might just be looking at another wedding. Hahahaha! Will 3 times be the charm? Or is it 5 times? I lost track. hahahahaha

ken said...

Loretta (to Ted): BTW, when's the last time you had planet-orbiting sex?

Whenever Ted has sex, the planet does at least shake ... or at least, the Coastal Plate. :)

ken said...

From the KOOOOOOK Blog (certain to be heavily edited):

Ken: I've heard you make this argument before, and California permits damages in tort for libel by innuendo.

Ted: But truth is an absolute defence against libel.

Ken: Which is, of course, why KFI's John and Ken feel that they are on such solid ground....

As for Sarah, I know that this might come as a shock to the members of Team Cam who are lifetime members of 24-Hour FATness and/or the local snake-handling Fundy church, but real people in good physical condition like to have sex more than once every two or three months (in your case, Ted, if we exclude glory-hole action, it's more like two or three decades). Given how Christians never let their religion interfere with their personal lives, it surprises me not a whit that Sarah wanted to get picked up, as opposed to knocked up. She had nothing to fear from INS: it's not like anyone actually enforces our immigration laws....

Besides, it's the guy's responsibility to make sure he takes the proper precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If Sarah wanted to get knocked up, she would have told Cam that she was on the Pill. IIRC, you told us that the condom either broke or leaked, which is squarely on Cam; he would be equally at fault if he knew her (in a biblical sense, of course) without protection, and without knowing her well enough to know.

It is therefore clear that your charge against Sarah is utterly without foundation; by stark contrast, the charge against Cam sticks. Thanks to Shannon Farren's reporting, it is undeniable that Patty looks like you with long dishwater-grey hair; to be kind, she's no Sarah Key or Loretta Serrano. If we "do the math" (as you counsel), we can reasonably conclude that Camma Nicole Brown was looking for a rich sugar-mama -- and he wasn't too particular as to who his patsy was. Logically speaking (making allowances for the fact that logic is a foreign language to you), he married her for her money, and was obviously exploiting her.

The acquaintance said...

Another commenter asks above “who really cares what happens to Cam Brown?”

Clearly Ted Kaldis and his various detractors care, if for no other reason than to wound the hated adversary.

Others join Terence in saying “I am a man: I hold that nothing human is alien to me.” In this dark age, though, few rise to that level.

One side claims an innocent man faces undeserved punishment at the hands of power-mad government functionaries. The other wants to see a bloodthirsty murderer receive his due. Both can be compelling if one finds justice more interesting than celebrity. Then again, Geragos’s celebrity is at play here and there’s a chance his reputation may sink even farther.

There is yet another reason to care what happens here. In future years Cameron Brown could become a cause celebre’ himself.

It’s undisputed that he suggested that Sarah Key abort in 1996. (There’s a bit of dispute as to how vigorous this suggestion was.) After he left Sarah, it is a matter of public record that he was pursued for child support and vigorously contested that responsibility. He ended up on the hook for support payments, but the payments were reduced when he took a more active role in parenting. Brown’s active role in parenting brought about the child’s death before her fifth birthday, whether by intent or by tragic accident.

Current law gives women nearly unlimited discretion to terminate or carry pregnancies to term with no regard to the father’s desires. No reason is too trivial for a woman to exercise that choice, provided she does so soon enough after conception. Soon absentee fathers will demand the same opportunity and they’ll eventually prevail. Since parentage may not always be determined until after birth, the exercise of that particular choice may have to be delayed until after the third trimester. Cameron Brown v. California might someday be cited alongside Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Rapid progress is not a good thing when you’re headed in the wrong direction.

Now I suppose we’ll see if this blog still has Mad Poofters deleting what they find unappealing as we see done so often at the other blog.

ken said...

TA: Now I suppose we’ll see if this blog still has Mad Poofters deleting what they find unappealing as we see done so often at the other blog.

I don't expect that we will; CG and Loretta edit with a light hand, unless posts are intentionally abusive and devoid of content (which happens often enough).

You've already been poofed by the Mad Poofter, which is no surprise given the mindset over there. I'm tolerated (albeit just) on account of my legal knowledge.

loretta said...

Oh, heck. I'm not going to POOF anything that well-written if it's not deliberately insulting or abusive to anyone.

But, I doubt this is the forum for a debate on third-trimester abortions or birth control.

heh.

I also doubt CA v Brown will ever be a case presented as defense for paternal rights. NOT likely. Interesting idea, though.

The Acquaintance said...

Poof insurance cross-post.

Friendly advice, in a discussion where you have impugned the mental health of others, it becomes even more important than usual to be sure that your own reasoning is above reproach.

“another indication that "The Acquaintance" might be Ken's sockpuppet”

There are over four million people in Colorado.

Tuesday afternoon I went to the grocery store. In the checkout line I waited behind a man who looked to be between 30 and 50 years old. Ken Smith fits that profile, so it must have been him! Sure it’s possible, but it’s statistically improbable.

The other day I was walking in the park. Some guy was yelling obscenities at me for no discernable reason. Wayne Delia has used foul language: it must have been him! Never mind that (1) we haven’t established that Wayne was in the neighborhood at all; (2) we haven’t established that he would have yelled obscenities at a stranger for no discernable reason at that time, date and place; and (2) we haven’t established that there aren’t several other folks in metro Denver who would have done so under those circumstances. Again the ID here, while possible in theory, is not especially likely and by no means certain.

It should be readily evident that I have nothing to do with any of the folks who have prior involvement with Ted.

First off, I entered the discussion by objecting to anti-Christian remarks. I've been rougher on various of Ted's adversaries than on Ted himself. Then I brought in some pro-life observations. None of those fit anything done in the past by Ted's habitual detractors nor any of their interests in this case. While I've been around Cameron Brown on several occasions since the mid 1980s, to my recollection I've never even met Ted or any of his antagonists. On the off chance I have met one of them, it wasn't in any context where Ted or this case was discussed – such as the grocery store or park examples above.

Those of you who like to “do the math”, apply that to what I’ve written and you ought to see that I am a Christian myself. I don’t advertise that too broadly in this type of forum as I don’t want anyone to think less of Christianity due to my own many and most grievous faults. I, like Evelyn Waugh, would be more horrible still were it not for the faith. I can’t get too much more specific without running the risk of dragging my friend who is also Cam’s friend into this. Doing that would make a poor friend indeed.

If one went to the trouble to find that I posted from a Colorado ISP, one could also go to the trouble to see that I accessed old comments on this blog where Cameron Brown's partisans clearly said that he suggested the abortion, that he left Sarah, and that there was a reduction in child support despite the furious objections to those very statements yesterday afternoon. Of course were one to do that, there might be more poofing ahead for the mad poofters. So I should wait and only comment on some trip to the coast, or would that be derided for yet other reason?

BTW - credit where due to those who don't poof my posts or make unfounded statements about me.

The Acquaintance said...

More poof insurance.

First off, I remembered the reduction in child support but not that it was temporary, so I stand corrected.

As to the toehr two points, though not readily visible this morning in comments at this blog, take a look here: http://www.groupsrv.com/religion/about112761.html

Relevant excerpts from Ted’s post of 4/7/2005 at 8:24 am.

Sarah DID at some point inform Cameron that she believed she was pregnant,
with his child. But it was after about 2 months from when he started seeing
her. He did suggest that she get an abortion. . . .
Quote:
Shortly thereafter, around February, 1996, Cameron and Sarah stopped
seeing each other. (RT 21.) (endquote)

And why was that? BECAUSE CAMERON CAUGHT SARAH IN THE PASSIONATE EMBRACE OF
ANOTHER MAN!!! He stopped seeing altogether at that time, and broke off all
contact with her. And he began to doubt that she was pregnant with his
child.

- end of excerpt –

It would appear that the sentence after the exclamation points should read “He stopped seeing her altogether” as there’s no evidence that the defendant went blind, even temporarily.

So, in which instance were the partisans truthful and in which were they not truthful?

CountryGirl said...

Ted says alot of things.
1-8-2004:

He had had absolutely NO contact with Sarah for 3
years until Sarah demanded child support, and Lauren was already 2 1/2 years
old. He didn't even know that she had become pregnant.

ken said...

Poof insurance from de udder blog:

TA: As to impugning mental health of others:

If you’ve read much moral theology, you’re familiar with the sin of detraction.

As this photo (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/ TED_AUS.jpg) proves, Ted is familiar with all sorts of sins, with gluttony being consistently at the top of the list. At least, now you will know what he looks like ... and know enough to migrate quickly to the other side of the road.

All levity aside, Ted's sin isn't so much one of detraction as it is one of hypocrisy. Anyone who is even skeptical of his claims is set upon with unbridled vengeance ... but anyone who praises Saint Cameron walks with the angels. For example, Ted has accused (or insinuated, depending on the particular iteration) that Sarah Key tried to get pregnant so that she would be able to stay in the country. Of course, this is objectively ludicrous, as no one actually enforces our immigration law, and unlike those members of Team Cam who are lifetime members of 24 Hour FATness, healthy people in good shape like to have sex more than once every three months. That Sarah wanted to have sex just to have sex is hardly surprising; she was, after all, a Christian, and the biblical prohibition against extramarital relations has never been more than a gentle suggestion.

By the same token, any discussion of whether Cam married Patty for financial reasons is strictly out of bounds. According to reporter Shannon Farren of KFI (a fact confirmed by eyewitnesses at trial), Cam's former girlfriends (Sarah and the Baywatch Babe) were world-class hotties, at least five years younger than him. By stark contrast, Patty is fat, frumpy, and over fifty: picture Ted in a blouse and dishwater-grey hair. Knowing the crushing burden that supporting Lauren imposed on him (over a third of his meager income!), and that he could no longer live his lifestyle on a mere stevedore's salary, it is quite reasonable to conclude that he married Patty for the money, and Old Maid-To-Be Patty took the offer because she wasn't going to get a better one.

While Ted makes facially baseless insinuations to denigrate his opponents, reasonable inferences relevant to the trial tending to work to Cam's disadvantage are strictly verboten on this blog. Differing weights and measures: Doesn't your LORD detest them both?

TA: We’re not here to talk about Ken Smith’s application for a license to practice law, so while the statement may be true, it isn’t germane.

The only way it could possibly be germane is if we could say with confidence that our government officials never act in an arbitrary, capricious, and/or malicious manner. Of course, if that was the case, we would also be forced to conclude that Cam Brown is presumptively a malicious, cold-blooded baby-killer, because our government would never prosecute anyone that they weren't pretty certain to be guilty. But Ted wants you to infer that I am in some way mentally deficient, without coming to the inexorable conclusion that his precious brudder-in-law is a cold-blooded baby-killer. Differing weights and measures: Doesn't your LORD detest them both?

TA: If you’re not familiar with the term, even google can get you an intro.

While ignorance is curable, Ted's stupidity is forever; you can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think. Trust me on this, and if you doubt me, google kaldis@worldnet.att.net.

TA: Ted, you also called another disputant “psychotic”. Either you’re practicing medicine without a license by diagnosing her, you’ve illegally acquired confidential documents, or you’re blowing smoke.

A Ph.D. psychologist has diagnosed Ted as a stalker, which is why he looked up your ISP. He even traced my posts to Tahiti (when I was at home in front of the fire here in Colorado; it was one of the few times that I really, really, really wanted him to be right). He also went scouring the 'Net for any traces of me when I was busy body-surfing in the Indian Ocean, and traveled across the city of Melbourne, AUS (about the size of Chicago) to take the picture of the home of a 'Net adversary -- to send the message that "I know where you live, and can get to you at any time." He has pretty much stalked us all, which is why I proffer this warning to you: Do not give up any personal information that he can use to investigate you.

That having been said, he has taken Loretta to task for having several marriages, despite the fact that he has never been married (and frankly, I doubt that any woman would have him). He has also taken Wayne Delia to task for being a frat house advisor, when no frat would ever take him, even as a legacy. Ted produces so many red herrings, cats and transplanted Icelanders from here to Capistrano instinctively salivate.

TA: I mention the mental health allegations because the conclusion that I'm connected with Ken Smith is so risible.

To Ted, anyone who posts from a Colorado ISP is presumed to be me ... despite the fact that Cam lived in Colorado and presumably, would still have classmates and friends who'd remember him. My proof was that for Ted's conclusion to be true, he would have to assume that every one of Cam's friends, acquaintances, lovers, and wives were as dumb as a box of rocks, and would not have even the rudiments of a classical education; even though Cam was an apparent dud of Brobdignagian proportion, a lot of kids from Creek go Ivy. It is therefore quite possible that you are who you say you are.

TA: BTW, to anyone to whom this applies, there are plenty of useful words out there free for the taking, so what does it profit to use so many banal vulgarities?

Here are some classic Tedisms:

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

[Obviously, Ted had never met this extremely cute Hindu chick: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2...ain663862.shtml]

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

"BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion, b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You know sh*t."
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

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

Obviously, you didn't know that Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** ast*r*sks.

ken said...

Poof insurance:

CI: Cry me a river, Ken. A civilized society has rules. So does this blog. Abide by them or leave.

Whether "the rules" are honorable, fair and just is beside the point -- right, Comrade Stalin?

CI: The basic problem you seem to have, Ken, is that you can not discuss the subject at hand without admitting the grave injustices and obvious manipulation to bring this case to trial.

Sure, I can. Carl Person is right -- more right than you have the wit to understand. Our system is not in need of a few tweaks; it demands a complete engine and transmission overhaul. And at the heart of the problem is the problem you have so painfully displayed: Tyrants invariably abuse the power they acquire. And if you don't perceive your own abuse of power as innately unjust, you have abandoned your moral standing to complain when others do the same.

Ted Kaldis is Craig Hum -- engaging in what appears on its face to be relentlessly unbridled and unfair character assassination and worse, because you (in the role of Judge Arnold) have chosen to look the other way. I'm playing Mark Geragos -- yelling at the judge (you) like Earl Weaver on steroids to call a "fair game." But as a corrupt judge, you have no intention of calling one. You have an agenda.

How, then, can you credibly claim that a "gross injustice" has occurred, when all the players have done is precisely what you have done in closely analogous circumstances? Different weights and measures: Doesn't your LORD detest them both?

CI: You are a disruption...sort of like the little kid who bullies everyone on the playground.

If holding your nose to your own stench constitutes a "disruption," you should sort of understand how Judge Arnold feels. That pesky Ken 'Geragos' wants to put on evidence facially relevant to the case, but not to your desired outcome. So you do what any Judge Arnold would do: censor that evidence, to make certain that the jury doesn't see it. And whenever Ted 'Hum' browbeats a 'juror' like TA or illegitimately excludes one like Kent, you turn a blind eye to it, because all you care about is securing a conviction ... by hook or by crook.

If you can't run an honest courtroom yourself, how can you justifiably complain when others don't?

CI:You have gone out of your way to put yourself first and foremost on this blog.

No, I have put your own hypocrisy and dishonesty first and foremost on this blog. I have held you to the same standard of scrutiny that you want us to hold Judge Arnold to, and it is obvious that you have failed the test quite miserably. I am sure that that is intensely uncomfortable for you, and my insistence that you run your own FAUX News in a more fair and balanced manner is intensely inconvenient. By way of example, it is amusing to me to see how persistently that you complain (without a shred of evidence to back it up) that Craig Hum has a "reputation" and is a man without honor, while denying that Ted Kaldis is a "bigot" and eradicating the evidence proving that fact beyond cavil.

CI:I'm real sick of wading through your posts that have nothing to do with the subject of this blog.

Again, Judge Arnold, I admire your intellectual consistency.

If you can exclude evidence that is logically relevant and harmful to Cam on the grounds that, in your opinion, it has nothing to do with the subject, then Judge Arnold can exclude the rest of the autopsy, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the subject. And the beautiful thing about that is that (a) his opinions actually matter and (b) are as effectively irreversible as yours. So, cry me a river about Cam's yellow toothbrush and interminable incarceration, and/or the crushing legal fees Team Cam has had to shell out; you have tacitly endorsed the system by adopting it.

[blockquote]"You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. Yet in their hearts there is unspoken - unspeakable! - fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse - a little tiny mouse! -of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic."
-- Winston Churchill[/blockquote]

"A civilized society has rules." So did Soviet Russia. "So does this blog." And it would seem that it has the same basic rules as Soviet Russia....

Crash Test Dummy said...

K: Ted Kaldis is Craig Hum -- engaging in what appears on its face to be relentlessly unbridled and unfair character assassination and worse, because you (in the role of Judge Arnold) have chosen to look the other way. I'm playing Mark Geragos -- yelling at the judge (you) like Earl Weaver on steroids to call a "fair game." But as a corrupt judge, you have no intention of calling one. You have an agenda.

I've been away for a few days on business, and I just now caught up mostly on the recent discussions both here and there. This is an extremely powerful analogy, one which is certainly not lost on the Fat Ones.

With an obvious bias, a vanity blog is started which is consistently (although anonymously) supported against a set of injustices, largely imagined but possibly legitimate. This analogy clearly illustrates that those who are running the blog (Ted, anonymous Patty, and possibly one or more others also too cowardly to identify themselves) are administering the rules of posting to the blog in exactly the same manner which they perceive the Camoron Brown trial is being unjustly administered. That's gotta hurt, and Ted is indicating it certainly does hurt him, thusly:

TK: This is sophistry, and you -- having studied logic -- know it. Your argument is a logical non sequitur.

Earlier, though, he allows himself the same behavior he's complaining about in others:

TK: we can count among your friends... a former frat boy who hasn't grown up

My affiliation with Phi Kappa Sigma (Ted is wrong when he claims I'm a "former frat (sic) boy") has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Instead, Ted needed to slip in a very weak insult attempt because I hit a little too close to the target about Geragos reprimanding him for begging the question of Geragos's professional competence by withholding Ted's imaginary "H-bomb" evidence. Ted's quote above is a classic textbook example of a non-sequitur - the same type of rhetoric he's complaining about above, when others do it, but when he does it, it's perfectly OK (according to the Ted Kaldis Totally Fucked Rules of Debate).

The fat fuck just doesn't get it - or else he does get it, and he's too embarrassed to admit it. There are no other options.

WMD

CountryGirl said...

Geragos loses another case and wasn't there again when the verdict went down.

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/44324.html

(snipped)

Even with a high-flying Los Angeles attorney defending him, a jury found Tannen Soojian of Fresno guilty Thursday of the kidnapping, robbing and attempted murder of a newspaper carrier while she was on a delivery route with her teenage son three years ago.

(snipped)

Geragos was in Los Angeles attending to another case when Soojian's verdict was announced.

Compuelf said...

From the K00K blog (it'll be gone soon enough):

CI:
Once again, Ken. There is only one person who has been banned from this blog. Kent Wills.


Me:
I have? Don't confuse my electing not to post with being banned.

Although, my asking questions that you cannot HONESTLY answer without admitting there has been nothing amiss in regards to Cameron is probably reason to want to ban me.

CI:
I struggle to put up with you, but I've done it now for the entire existence of this blog. Please be honest.

Me:
He is.
Kent Wills | 04.29.07 - 11:31 am |

Compuelf said...

Wayne wrote:
Ted's just rattled because I pointed out on Usenet that his recent outbursts against Kent Wills were motivated thusly: "Sounds like somebody's pissed off that his baby-killing brother-in-law's high-priced lawyer slapped that somebody on the wrist for prompting the raising of the question of the lawyer's incompetence and malpractice of withholding "H-bomb" caliber evidence claimed to exonerate and vindicate the baby-killer brother-in-law. Sounds like that somebody is you, Toad."

The timing is certainly interesting. There is no way for us to KNOW that an investigation into Ted's claim that Geragos withheld the H-Bomb class evidence is going on. However, it would most probably have started during the last few weeks. Right about the time Ted made his posts.

I expect that who ever conducts such investigations is required to alert Geragos about the allegations so that he can respond to them.

Upon learning that Ted has indirectly accused Marc of various legal and ethical violations, Ted went into damage control mode. He attempted to somehow make it appear as if I've lied about Lindsay, when in fact he only managed to ass more proof to his incompetence as an investigator.

When someone quoted me quoting John Hattan's list of Ted's Greatest Hits, Ted claimed it somehow made me a pathological liar. Odd that Ted has freely admitted to making the posts in the past, but now they're lies. I wonder how Ted's rationalizes this. Odds are we'll never know.

We all knew from day one that Ted was lying. And he has been kind enough to offer more evidence to support this.

Compuelf said...

Loretta wrote:

...Ok, just checking to make sure there is no way I could be defined as "psychotic."

Not under any known definition. However, Ted doesn't use accepted definitions for most of the words he uses. He makes them up as he goes along.

... As far as being a former drug user? Wayull...gosh...this from someone bragging about 'electric beer.'


Ted clearly is an alcoholic (maybe a recovering alcoholic -- I don't have the information to know).

He and his friends felt it necessary to ROB people at the end of a tyre iron in order to get the funds necessary to acquire more beer. If this isn't H-Bomb class evidence of addiction, I don't know what is.

If Ted has sought help for this addiction (through AA or other similar organization) I applaud him. Any addiction is difficult to over come and live with.

I doubt he has, since he would be willing to admit to it. I think that's part of recovery, admitting that you have the addiction and are living with it.

I have had such a narrow experience with mood-altering substances, it's hilarious. Yes, I abused something or other, got sober, stayed sober almost 14 years.

Depending on Ted's agenda at the moment, he's either sober or a drinker.

That would be considered a SUCCESS STORY, my dear. I am the poster girl for recovery.

And Ted is the poster boy for failure, though not exclusively for drug abuse.

As far as the "string of failed marriages" - hey, at least I have had 4 or more guys ASK me to marry them. How many proposals have you gotten, TOAD?

Men aren't allowed to marry other men in California, so I would think the number is zero. If this should change, I expect a nice ceremony at the local Unitarian Church.

...So, I bailed out. Big deal. I've had library books out longer than my marriages, so what?

Well, you had some hefty fines to pay to the library :)

At least I know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, baby.

Ted can't even get to the hold 'em stage. He has freely announced that he's never had a successful relationship with a woman.

But, that 'psychotic' label won't fit, sweetie.

Using Ted's definition (Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with EVERYTHING Ted claims, no matter what the actual evidence shows, is psychotic) it does. But then, in Ted's world, everyone but him is psychotic.

ken said...

Wayne, feel free to comment on the KoooooK Blog -- they warrant that they aren't banning you.

CI: Once again, Ken. There is only one person who has been banned from this blog. Kent Wills. I struggle to put up with you, but I've done it now for the entire existence of this blog. Please be honest.

ken said...

More fun from the Joey Buttafucco Lounge? From the KOOOOOK Blog:

CI: Ken, when you can't discuss the issues at hand you disseminate and moan about the big bad teddy bear who pulled your chain years ago.

Don't forget that when I am sipping a nice Shiraz with my rack of lamb down at the Club, quaffing a Cosmo at Caesars' VIP lounge, or scarfing Balmain bugs in Brisbane, Cam'll be eating cold hash at the Joey Buttafucco Lounge. Or, while I am shooting the curl in the Indian Ocean, dancing through knee-deep champagne powder in Steamboat, or simply cycling to Cheyenne, Cam will be counting cockroaches on the wall in the O.J. Suite.

Speaking of "big, bad teddy bears," Hum and Leslie are supposed to be hunks (according to CG) ... and Cam's balls and chain are all Bubba's.

When one of us are thrown under the bus, we all lose. But if it's no big deal when it happens to me, no one should give a rodent's biblical transport if it happens to Cam. We either hang together ... or hang separately.

ken said...

From the KOOOOOOOK Blog (unedited)
==================================
Edited by CI! OH, for crying out loud, Ted! Behave!!!!!! Sheesh!

A word for both of you....it is not in the best interest of anyone here to continue this war of words and innuendo. Please knock it off so that we can make some mutual steps forward here! Sheesh! Dang it all!
Theodore A. Kaldis | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 10:07 am | #
===================================
So, Ted really is "Case Insider."

ken said...

My post at the KOOOOOK Blog:

CAUGHT OUT!!!

Edited by CI! OH, for crying out loud, Ted! Behave!!!!!! Sheesh!

A word for both of you....it is not in the best interest of anyone here to continue this war of words and innuendo. Please knock it off so that we can make some mutual steps forward here! Sheesh! Dang it all!
Theodore A. Kaldis | Homepage | 04.30.07 - 10:07 am | #


Surreal to have Ted criticizing Ted from Ted's own computer (the program saves our names in a cookie, so the above was presumptively posted on Ted's home computer).

The only logical conclusion is that Ted really IS "Case Insider" ... or at bare minimum, Patty forgot to switch names.

I knew that this would eventually happen ... rest assured that it is preserved for posterity.

Either way, "Case Insider's" credibility is completely shot.

Wayne Delia said...

I don't think it's a big deal (CI "correcting" TK's post) and the explanation is probably right - Ted got diarrhea of the mouth so bad on something or other that CI swooped in to remove the entire post as a token gesture of impartiality. CI probably isn't Ted (really, who would want to be?), and Ted is certainly capable of throwing off a couple of f-bombs and s-bombs in lieu of his "H-bomb". This beauty of his is from September 18, 2006, at 9:44 AM:

------------------------------
Wayne Delia wrote:

> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Pat Pritchett-Sophy wrote:

>>> My point is that Patty & Ted should know how her name is actually
>>> spelled.

>> How is it that we should know, pray tell?

> You would, if you actually gave a shit about her. [...]

And who says we don't? You scumbag. You're not even worth the time it
takes to respond to you. Fuck off. And NO asterisks this time.
Motherfucker.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
-------------------------------

Ted immediately jumped in to cancel the note off of usenet. To his surprise and dismay, it wasn't taken off of Google Groups:

-------------------------------
forevernitefan wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Wayne Delia wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Pat Pritchett-Sophy wrote:
>>>>> My point is that Patty & Ted should know how her name is actually
>>>>> spelled.
>>>> How is it that we should know, pray tell?
>>> You would, if you actually gave a shit about her. [...]
>> [...]
> WHOOHOO! This time Teddie actually spelled out his cuss words!! [...]

Where did you get that article? I canceled it just minutes after I posted
it. You (or anyone else) weren't supposed to have seen it.
-------------------------------

(Both of those notes are still on Google Groups today.)

That's the way Ted wants to operate: He doesn't have that kind of control on usenet, and that incident embarrassed him profusely, so he's retreated to the only little corner of the Internet where he has some degree of editorial control. That reason, incidentally, is why I don't post over on the Kook Blob, and never will - what's the point? Ted has already taken to inserting his editorial comment into posts you've written, without you having the ability to do the same to him. This blog serves a valuable "poof insurance" function - Ted's heavy-handed editing doesn't work over here, and don't think for a minute that doesn't chafe his planet-sized ass.

Kent got banned precisely for the reason he noted - the questions he asks are simple, direct, and cut straight to the heart of a very uncomfortable and distressing cognitive dissonance for both of the Fat Ones: they're throwing a shitload of good money after a large amount of bad money. They need to believe Geragos is not only doing a good job, he's doing a GREAT job, despite the obvious malpractice of withholding critical evidence which would exonerate Camoron. Much money is already down the drain, and Ted would much rather continue spending that money rather than concede that he's... uh... exaggerating about the importance of the still-hidden "H-bomb" evidence.

loretta said...

It all boils down to why didn't Geragos present the arguments and alleged violations, perjury, etc. etc. ad nauseum, in the first trial?

Surely we are not expected to believe that the Kooks are better lawyers than Geragos? (Although, it's not much of a stretch.)

And if all the arguments KK make on their blob are true, why not present them to a competent attorney and get that poor innocent boy out of jail? For crying out loud!

And if all the arguments and accusations have merit, why do you need Geragos at all? Clearly, he has not advocated for his client if his client is ROTTING in jail w/o a bail hearing and there is all this material to get him out.

Surely we are not expected to believe that Poor Innocent Cam is rotting in jail because his lawyer is waiting for a second trial to 'exonerate' him?

Surely we are not expected to believe that "politics" and "corruption" are to be blamed for a nobody nothing no stakes no fame no money no life guy like Brown being in jail? Seriously?

He's nobody. That he has a blowhard "high profile" idiot as an attorney does not make him somebody, either.

Cam Brown is nobody. Nobody would risk their jobs, reputations, freedom or potential political aspirations for him.

No freaking way.

It's Constantly Risking Ridiculous Absurdity striking again.

And....on the miniscule slimmest chance that Geragos is holding off for some big Perry Mason moment in Trial #2, he should be fired.

He would be even more collosally stupid than I have ever imagined, and that's saying a LOT.

Cuz, I think he's a total lame-brain. And I'm his biggest fan.

ken said...

Ted: What about personal accounability for individuals? Like admitting to one's self that one's own past personal actions are in large part the cause of the problems that one faces today?

Ken: I presume that you are referring to Cameron John Brown Brown and his act of felonious stupidity. You can make an argument that he deserves four years in the Hotel California for that alone....

Ted: But wouldn't the statement apply equally to, say, Ken Smith?


Let's apply it across the board, shall we? If Patty wasn't so b*tt-f*ck*n' UGLY (well, she can't be blamed for genetics, but she obviously must share your horrendous dietary habits -- and as Shannon Farren revealed, your deplorably sub-standard personal hygienic habits), she wouldn't have had to settle for an offer from a friggin' parasite. If she didn't eat her Hostess Ho-Hos with a back-hoe loader, she might have found somebody decent.

And if you had ever passed a bar or a McDonald's in your life, you might not have been so utterly grotesque, and you wouldn't have to get your sex in a glory hole.

If Cam had only responded to your tutelage (and bought cookies in bulk), he never would have taken Lauren on that dangerous hike. If he was bright enough to use a condom, Lauren would never have been born. And finally, if he wasn't such a weird f*ckwit that he looks like the kind of guy who oozes into the Seven-Eleven at 3:30 AM. Bottom line, under Kaldis Rules, it seems that Cam and Patty deserve what they got, as their own personal actions got them into this revolting predicament.

Everyone knows that the cops, the district attorneys, the judges, and pretty much everyone else is corrupt, and they all lie like a sober Kaldis. It's smarter for everyone to forego their legal rights, if they know what is good for them -- because it is never smart to get into a pissing match with a skunk. Just life in the big city, Ted....

Blame the victim, even when that victim is following the law. The authorities have no responsibility whatever to follow the law, because they are the law. And if you get run over by the bus, well, it is what you truly deserve, as we should all admit "that one's own past personal actions are in large part the cause of the problems that one faces today."

So, why should we feel sorry for Cam*ron? Patty? After all, it is their fault!

I apologize for the tone, CI ... but after all, it is your fault! If you had banned Ted, I wouldn't be responding like this, and we'd be talking about the topic at hand. :)

ken said...

More poof insurance:

Ted: You want one standard for others, but an entirely different -- and much more lax -- standard for yourself.

How silly is that, Ted?! I merely pointed out the injustice inherent in your rule of decision -- that we are responsible for the negative consequences of our actions, but others (in both cases, public authorities) are not. Fortunately, I have 'poof insurance' over at the other blog.

Let's analyze the statement you objected to, without directly mentioning participants in the Cam Brown saga:

Everyone knows that the cops, the district attorneys, the judges, and pretty much everyone else is corrupt, and they all lie like a sober Kaldis. It's smarter for everyone to forego their legal rights, if they know what is good for them -- because it is never smart to get into a pissing match with a skunk. Just life in the big city, Ted....

Blame the victim, even when that victim is following the law. The authorities have no responsibility whatever to follow the law, because they are the law. And if you get run over by the bus, well, it is what you truly deserve, as we should all admit "that one's own past personal actions are in large part the cause of the problems that one faces today."

So, why should we feel sorry for Cam*ron? Patty? After all, it is their fault!

Is it just to blame the victims of Hitler, Saddam, Mullarkey, and Hum for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time? You can't absolve Cameron Brown of responsibility for the death of Lauren Key under your rule of decision. But that having been said, there can be no excuse for authorities' disregard of substantive law. Whether it is judges deciding a case in which they are defendants in indisputable violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, or a district attorney's subornation of perjured testimony, shouldn't they be morally responsible for their wrongs?

If your answer is no, then you should shut down your "Free Cam Brown" website, as it serves no useful purpose.

The rule of decision I would argue for is that we are all responsible for any and all legal consequences of our actions. If that means that one of the consequences is that Cam be tried for murder or even criminally negligent homicide, then so be it. But what one cannot tolerate is willful abuse of the investigative and/or prosecutorial process by individuals who should know better; it is patently ludicrous to suggest (as you necessarily must) that we should somehow be responsible for their violations of the law. That is the double-standard to which I must most emphatically object.

At the end of the day, under your rule of decision, Patty is guilty of being fat, ugly, and slovenly, and taking the first (and probably, only) marriage proposal she was offered. Under my rule of decision, she is as a practical matter utterly blameless. Which rule of decision do you accept now, and why?

ken said...

CI pontificated: Now that is downright pathetic, Ken. I know you like to be dramatic to make a point, but you are a distasteful twit! I'm leaving it up [well, actually, they took it down -- see my post of 5/1 for the unedited original] just because you deserve to have people judge you by your character, and the character you displayed in that post flucking sucks! As for Shannon Farren, it's really no wonder she works for John and Ken. Birds of a feather and all that rot. You better hope there is no God standing in judgment because you just threw away your last free pass.

And, Ken.....I won't apologize for what I am thinking right now. You have no self discipline or sense of humanity to be able to say the things you say. I feel very bad for you because you had to have been standing behind the door when they handed out the sensitivity and decency genes. Excuse me while I go throw darts at the dartboard and burn something in effigy.


I am deliberately and consciously being as insensitive as a Kaldis; Ted has aptly described this process as "mud-wrestling"; I'm not reluctant to get down in the mud and play by Ted's Rules. As you have swallowed the whistle when it comes to Ted's fouls, you have no moral standing to complain about my self-discipline, sensitivity, or sense of decency. Get off your high horse; you are not lacking in openly-displayed character flaws.

That Shannon Farren described Patty as fat, slovenly, and ugly -- in short, pretty much what you would expect: Ted Kaldis with shoulder-length dishwater-grey hair -- is hardly within my control, but it is the presumptively fair assessment of an independent female journalist. What's more, it has never been rebutted by photographic evidence at this site. It doesn't stop Patty from being nice, decent, or a generally good person (emphatically unlike her twin brother), but it is a fact relevant to this saga and more importantly, to the issue at hand (responsibility for one's actions). Why am I obliged to display restraint, sensitivity, and decency, whereas others posting here are not?

My advice to you, CI: House-train your hippo.

Skye said...

I'm tellin' ya. Geragoat is a victims advocate! LOL

Keyripes! Everyone he goes through the motions of defending, goes "down"! Snort!

Wayne Delia said...

Ted's lost it. Again.

TK: Ken, DON'T YOU GET IT??? So what if I were to agree with you on all this? SO F***IN' WHAT?

We, being smarter than Jesus, perceive the impression that Ted is trying to create of him being a rough, tough, leathernecked, mean son-of-a-bitch who swears like a trooper. Jesus, though, is totally confused by his use of ast*r*sks. If anyone reported him to Jesus, Ted would use the excuse that he wasn't really swearing at all, just using regular, non-offensive words, which he wasn't man enough to post without hiding behind the asterisks.

TK: Who was it that quoted the Tom Cruise character in "A Few Good Men"? It DOESN'T MATTER what I think! It matters what the COURT RULES!
If Ted actually believed that, he never would have started his pathetic "Free Cam Brown" website.

TK: (And we all know how that went.)
We also all know how California v. Brown went the first time through.

TK: Interminably prattling here about some injustice you claim to have suffered is "unavailing" for you, and will accomplish exactly SQUAT! So STFU already and MOVE ON!
Now imagine Ted trying to communicate that same verbatim message to Camoron, if only Ted wasn't such a hypocrite.

"Hippo-crite." The remark about house-training the hippo made my day.

Wayne Delia said...

"Keyripes! Everyone he goes through the motions of defending, goes "down"! Snort!"

Reminds me of a line from Woody Allen's "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy." When he was asked what he did for a living, he claimed he was a "Crackpot inventor. Actually, I'm an investment counselor. I help people with their investments, until there's nothing left."

Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:

The only logical conclusion is that Ted really IS "Case Insider" ... or at bare minimum, Patty forgot to switch names.

I've long said I think Patty is Case Insider. I never had anything solid to base that on. It was just a feeling.

Now, thanks to Ted, there is something to point to as proof.

Yes, it's very possible CI is Ted, but the wittings just don't ring as being Ted's.

Skye said...

No screaming, you mean? LOL

ken said...

Poof insurance:

Ted: Ken, DON'T YOU GET IT??? So what if I were to agree with you on all this? SO F***IN' WHAT?

Ted, is your Jesus really so FUCKIN' stupid that he really FUCKIN' doesn't know that you really mean "FUCKIN'" when you write "F***IN'?" Or, are you simply not man enough to say what you mean? (As us heathen don't believe in anything being sacred, we don't believe that any word is profane, and for the most part, we consider "fuckin'" to be a very good thing. :) Of course, if you are as fat and hopelessly out-of-shape as our TeddiBeer, it probably could be [as he has admitted] too much of a bother.)

While I know that this concept escapes you, honesty really is the best policy. When you wrote, "And who says we don't? You scumbag. You're not even worth the time it takes to respond to you. Fuck off. And NO asterisks this time. Motherfucker," you were the real simian TeddiBeer we have all come to know and loathe. And as your *st*r*sks don't serve as an adequate veneer of civility, you might as well be honest and be the bigoted troglodyte we know you are.

To admit that crimes have been committed is the first step in remedying them. (After all, if you really and truly believed that it didn't matter what anyone but the judge believed, your pathetic "Free Cam Brown" site serves no useful purpose whatsoever.) Smith v. Mullarkey is significant in the sense that it is both illustrative and emblematic of a much larger problem -- one you refuse to acknowledge, unless it affects your baby-killin' brudder-in-law.

Ted: Who was it that quoted the Tom Cruise character in "A Few Good Men"? It DOESN'T MATTER what I think! It matters what the COURT RULES!

Under that rule of decision, this blog is utterly pointless. The Arnold Court has ruled on matters of the admission of evidence in People v. Brown, and it will rule in the same way in substantially identical circumstances this summer -- and you can expect other courts to circle the wagons around Judge Arnold. After all, there is no penalty imposed upon a judge for making even egregiously wrong evidentiary decisions, and Judge Arnold is free to make enough of them to ensure that Cam will eventually be convicted. Worse yet, by prattling on interminably, you are providing a road map for the prosecution -- which can't help.

Ted: (And we all know how that went.)

We also know how the first People v. Brown went. If Geragos refused to deploy your H-bomb, he committed disbarrable malpractice. Conversely, if Geragos couldn't deploy your H-bomb 'cuz the Court wouldn't let him, let me let you in on a little secret: He won't be able to drop it this summer, either. Which is it, Ted? Either way, your whingeing serves no useful purpose.

Ted: Interminably prattling here about some injustice you claim to have suffered is "unavailing" for you, and will accomplish exactly SQUAT! So STFU already and MOVE ON!

Translated, Ted is too proud to admit that he is wrong and/or too stupid to see the big picture. It is facetious to suggest that People v. Cam*ron John Brown is sui generis, and if you had any clue as to the true scope of the problem, you would instantly appreciate its relevance. But ultimately, Ted, it is about just about the only thing more out-of-proportion than your waistline: your ego.

ken said...

More poof insurance:

Ted: Ken, lay off the sauce.

Ted, lay off the Twinkies, acid, and amyl nitrate ... and answer the question. At the end of the day, under your rule of decision, Patty is guilty of being fat, ugly, and slovenly, and taking the first (and probably, only) marriage proposal she was offered. Under my rule of decision, she is as a practical matter utterly blameless. Which rule of decision do you accept now, and why?

Skye said...

Hmm. Living proof that a hippo got intimate with a monkey, I reckon.

Okay. I know I'm being childish.

ken said...

More poof insurance:

Ted lied: I have had to POOF the two latest entries by Ken Smith. It seems that Ken is simply utterly unable to restrain himself from engaging in vicious ad hom attacks whenever he finds himself in a losing position.

If that were true, you wouldn't fear my comments or resort to censorship. For instance, when you bust off bigoted and/or racist comments like "What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***," I quote you whenever I can, because your comments are so incriminating that I couldn't do them justice. Censorship is the argument of the loser, whether it is the Soviet Union or our own Soviet law courts. You are the ones complaining that Judge Arnold is censoring evidence; how can you criticize censorship in others when you are so eager to indulge in it yourself?

Why are you so afraid of this post:

Ted: Ken, DON'T YOU GET IT??? So what if I were to agree with you on all this? SO F***IN' WHAT?

Ted, is your Jesus really so FUCKIN' stupid that he really FUCKIN' doesn't know that you really mean "FUCKIN'" when you write "F***IN'?" Or, are you simply not man enough to say what you mean? (As us heathen don't believe in anything being sacred, we don't believe that any word is profane, and for the most part, we consider "fuckin'" to be a very good thing. Of course, if you are as fat and hopelessly out-of-shape as our TeddiBeer, it probably could be [as he has admitted] too much of a bother.)

While I know that this concept escapes you, honesty really is the best policy. When you wrote, "And who says we don't? You scumbag. You're not even worth the time it takes to respond to you. Fuck off. And NO asterisks this time. Motherfucker," you were the real simian TeddiBeer we have all come to know and loathe. And as your *st*r*sks don't serve as an adequate veneer of civility, you might as well be honest and be the bigoted troglodyte we know you are.

Is it because you are embarrassed that your own shameful hypocrisy is laid bare? And pray tell, where is the ad hominem attack in this:To admit that crimes have been committed is the first step in remedying them. (After all, if you really and truly believed that it didn't matter what anyone but the judge believed, your pathetic "Free Cam Brown" site serves no useful purpose whatsoever.) Smith v. Mullarkey is significant in the sense that it is both illustrative and emblematic of a much larger problem -- one you refuse to acknowledge, unless it affects your baby-killin' brudder-in-law.Is it that you hate having your own actions shoved back in your face?

And where, pray tell, is the ad hominem attack in this:

Ted: Who was it that quoted the Tom Cruise character in "A Few Good Men"? It DOESN'T MATTER what I think! It matters what the COURT RULES!

Under that rule of decision, this blog is utterly pointless. The Arnold Court has ruled on matters of the admission of evidence in People v. Brown, and it will rule in the same way in substantially identical circumstances this summer -- and you can expect other courts to circle the wagons around Judge Arnold. After all, there is no penalty imposed upon a judge for making even egregiously wrong evidentiary decisions, and Judge Arnold is free to make enough of them to ensure that Cam will eventually be convicted. Worse yet, by prattling on interminably, you are providing a road map for the prosecution -- which can't help.

Ted: (And we all know how that went.)

We also know how the first People v. Brown went. If Geragos refused to deploy your H-bomb, he committed disbarrable malpractice. Conversely, if Geragos couldn't deploy your H-bomb 'cuz the Court wouldn't let him, let me let you in on a little secret: He won't be able to drop it this summer, either. Which is it, Ted? Either way, your whingeing serves no useful purpose.

It's just simply true: There is no "H-bomb" capable of being deployed at trial. If Lillienfeld was it, you have a whole lot of nothing in your hands. Every other claim amenable to analysis has proven to be false; why should anyone believe you with your track record? No ad homs to be found, as an entirely justifiable attack on you for your interminable lying and inexhaustible hypocrisy is not being offered to convict Cam Brown.

The real objection you have to this post is right here:

Ted: Interminably prattling here about some injustice you claim to have suffered is "unavailing" for you, and will accomplish exactly SQUAT! So STFU already and MOVE ON!

Translated, Ted is too proud to admit that he is wrong and/or too stupid to see the big picture. It is facetious to suggest that People v. Cam*ron John Brown is sui generis, and if you had any clue as to the true scope of the problem, you would instantly appreciate its relevance. But ultimately, Ted, it is about just about the only thing more out-of-proportion than your waistline: your ego.

ken said...

You knew the meltdown had to happen eventually over at the KOOOOOK Blog:

CI: Ken Smith, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your comments are not meant to hurt Ted, they are directed at people who you have suffered enough humiliation and certainly don't need you piling on. This would only be conceivable if Ted had attacked your wife or family, but instead he has done nothing of the sort and has only EVER stated his opinion with regard to your situation with the bar. That's what this is all about and how you justify your despicable behavior is way beyond my ability to comprehend.

Truly, you are a disgusting example of humanity at it's worst! But then, you need to deal with your life and live with yourself and if you find that possible all I can do is feel sorry for you. Birds of a feather flock together so please go entertain yourself with those you consider to be your friends. No one here gives a damn! Take your pathetic, ugly disposition and leave!

ken said...

My response (certain to be poofed):

CI:Ken Smith, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your comments are not meant to hurt Ted, they are directed at people who you have suffered enough humiliation and certainly don't need you piling on. This would only be conceivable if Ted had attacked your wife or family, but instead he has done nothing of the sort and has only EVER stated his opinion with regard to your situation with the bar.

That is of course a lie, but why should you start telling the truth now?

CI: That's what this is all about and how you justify your despicable behavior is way beyond my ability to comprehend.

How you justify your despicable behavior is way beyond my ability to comprehend.

CI: Truly, you are a disgusting example of humanity at it's worst!

Hey, at least I haven't thrown my only daughter off a friggin' cliff.

CI: But then, you need to deal with your life and live with yourself and if you find that possible all I can do is feel sorry for you.

Trust me, I don't lose one minute of sleep at night giving Ted what he so justly deserves.

CI: Birds of a feather flock together

Including compulsive liars like Team Cam?

CI: so please go entertain yourself with those you consider to be your friends. No one here gives a damn!

Considering that the only other participants are TeddiBeer and his sockpuppets, that is not beyond the outer limits of possibility.

CI: Take your pathetic, ugly disposition and leave!

Hard to conceive of anything more pathetic and ugly than http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg....

Wayne Delia said...

You no doubt remember David Sears, "emsguy" from alt.atheism and alt.fan.bob-larson. Just last night I was reviewing some of his greatest hits, and there were plenty. One thing I noticed was that I (and others) totally demolished his arguments, refuting his crap for which he had no response. But John Hattan and I actually went further and did him a favor. We'd show seven or eight reasons why whatever he was railing about was wrong, and then we'd make a crack about his infected nutsack he suffered a few weeks before bragging about Jesus's miracle cures available to Christians. In a way, that was like throwing him a life preserver while he was drowning. He could cry about being persecuted as a Christian instead of addressing all the flaws pointed out in his arguments, giving him an opportunity to "save face," such as it were. And that's probably a good thing, because without it, his whole life would have crashed down around him. Some might say that already happened, since he had an online meltdown.

Ted's huge head is in pretty much the same place, over there at the Anti-Anorexic Association blob. His poofing ain't working, because of this blog's "poof insurance" policy. His position has been pretty much nuked multiple times, and he's actually smart enough to realize it. So, he turns up the abuse and the asterisks, but whines like a stuck pig (actually, a morbidly obese stuck pig) when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Just as with Sears, you're doing Ted a big favor by laying it on him as he deserves. In his small mind, that gives him a reason to censor your posts, along with the painful arguments which demolish his position. Kent Wills didn't give him that opportunity, because he was perfectly civil, polite, and gave no other reason to have his posts removed. So, Ted had no choice but to ban Kent.

Do not think for a minute that Ted doesn't realize what a mess he and Twin Sister are in. Tens, nay hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on Geragoesthemoney on the California v. Brown Trial I. The sequel will cost more. The cognitive dissonance is too great to overcome that would enable them to even consider the idea that Geragos told Ted there was "H-bomb" evidence just to get Ted to shut up and quit bugging him. There is no "H-bomb". C*m*r*n may be acquitted, he may be convicted, but either way, C*m*r*n is a permanently damaged man, and the Twin Cows have pumped a lot of money toward Geragos's bank account, which removes Patty's only attractiveness to C*m*r*n. Bottom line: Ted's looking for any excuse to make those painful facts posted on his blob go away, but Ted knows the issues remain, and Ted knows he deserves everything he's gotten. And regardless how the People vs. Brown II turns out, the worst is yet to come.

Skye said...

Ted, do your sister a favour. Tell her to cut her losses...forget about Camoron and save herself from bankruptcy. That is where your duty should lie.

Geragoesthemoney, doesn't care about financially destroying the families of his clients. Personally, I find that appalling. He demands huge amounts of money for an inadequate and often juvenile Defense.

Wake up! Lauren's mother deserves justice! And, believe me, she will get it.

ken said...

poof insurance:

Ted:While I haven't formally banned Ken (yet)

You might as well be honest enough to ban me, as you have consistently excised arguments of substance under the fraudulent rubric of "ad hominem attacks" -- never mind that not a single ad hominem attack against me has been removed. Differing weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?

Under your rule of decision, Patty deserves to be an old maid, and Cam*ron deserves Bubba. And no one else should care. See you in the California Court of Appeals, about 24 months from now.

ken said...

Yup, the Tedious one poofed me again. What a shock.

Ted: While I haven't formally banned Ken (yet)

You might as well be honest enough to ban me, as you have consistently excised arguments of substance under the fraudulent rubric of "ad hominem attacks" -- never mind that not a single ad hominem attack against me has been removed. Differing weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?

Under your rule of decision, Patty deserves to be an old maid, Cam*ron deserves Bubba, and no one else should care. See you in the California Court of Appeals, about 24 months from now. Or, I'll see you on USENET, where you can't simply make compelling arguments utterly refuting you disappear.

Anonymous said...

Hey Ken,

Ted's looking for you in misc.legal.

He claims you Cameron bashers won't let him post to this blog.

Is that true?

Vox Atheos

forevernitefan said...

I've been catching up on the comments os pardon me for being a bit late.

My mainproblem with Kaldis is not his alleged following of Christianity but his bigoted, racist and sexist comments he doesn't have the guts to admit he posted years ago. He has made claims about Ken Smith and Kent WIlls that he doesn't have the integrity to admit when he was wrong, he's a pathological stalker of Ken Smith and as for the Cameron Brown case, he didn't even mention Lauren Key BY NAME until it was pointed out she had a name.

My view of the Cameron Brown case has nothing to do with Teddie or Patty. It's about the known facts of the case, the behavior of Cameron before and after and the likelihood of his motives to kill her.

As for Teddie and Patty's blog, may I say that they have banned me from their blog, particularly after I talked about Patty's obvious " voodoo kit" hidden under her bed. As a Pagan/Wiccan for over two decades, the description of what was in that cigar box and why it was hidden raised red flags to me about what Patty was trying to do. So Teddie complaining about his posts not being allowed here is highly hypocritical-- but typical of his double standard. We aren't allowed to postto their blog yet he complains he can't get his stuff posted here? Gimme a break!

As for the attacks on Loretta, I think Jesus Christ said " he who is wothout sin cast the first stone". You know Jesus Christ the guy Teddie claims to follow. Who the heck doesn't have some fault? If Loretta fought whatever chemical addiction she had and won, good for her!

Patty's little hidden spell kit was obvious to me. I explained it on a usenet post. I would have been much more detailed and specific if I had at the time the list of items found in the cigar box. As for Patty, the accounts of the Kaldis' behavior during the first trial and what Patty said to Sarah indicate to me that Patty Kaldis at the very least would have been an unfit parent to Lauren Key, or any child, for that matter.

The whole Cameron Brown case would not be so active online if Teddie didn't bring it up, apparently to get Ken Smith's legal advice without paying for it. As one who reads a lot of true crime cases, my interest is because of the accusation, not because this guy is related to Teddie by marriage to Patty. SO far I haven't seen anything to convince me Cameron is innocent. OTC what I have read indicates Cameron may have planned the " accident".

Teddie and Patty can be free to complain in their blog. This is Loretta's and she can edit it as she pleases. I still think Patty screwed up in a spell and doesn't want to admit it.

ken said...

I'll respond to this in both blogs, on the off chance that this is true (even though I know it will be removed from CamBlog, once Ted reads it):

Hey Ken,

Ted's looking for you in misc.legal.

He claims you Cameron bashers won't let him post to this blog.

Is that true?

Vox Atheos

To the best of my knowledge, it is not true. As I have written before, "CG and Loretta edit with a light hand, unless posts are intentionally abusive and devoid of content (which happens often enough)." Loretta has warranted that she is "not going to POOF anything that well-written if it's not deliberately insulting or abusive to anyone." And again to the best of my knowledge, no one has been categorically banned (although there may be an exception for Valerie Paredes). Certainly, I would be surprised if Ted has been.

That having been said, the CamBlog is run by Soviet-class commissars who edit with a remarkably heavy hand. On 4/29, "Case Insider" lied, "Once again, Ken. There is only one person who has been banned from this blog. Kent Wills." Our long-time friend Moe (a.k.a., forevernightfan) begs to differ:


My view of the Cameron Brown case has nothing to do with Teddie or Patty. It's about the known facts of the case, the behavior of Cameron before and after and the likelihood of his motives to kill her.

As for Teddie and Patty's blog, may I say that they have banned me from their blog, particularly after I talked about Patty's obvious " voodoo kit" hidden under her bed. As a Pagan/Wiccan for over two decades, the description of what was in that cigar box and why it was hidden raised red flags to me about what Patty was trying to do. So Teddie complaining about his posts not being allowed here is highly hypocritical-- but typical of his double standard. We aren't allowed to postto their blog yet he complains he can't get his stuff posted here? Gimme a break!

As for the attacks on Loretta, I think Jesus Christ said " he who is wothout sin cast the first stone". You know Jesus Christ the guy Teddie claims to follow. Who the heck doesn't have some fault? If Loretta fought whatever chemical addiction she had and won, good for her!

Patty's little hidden spell kit was obvious to me. I explained it on a usenet post. I would have been much more detailed and specific if I had at the time the list of items found in the cigar box. As for Patty, the accounts of the Kaldis' behavior during the first trial and what Patty said to Sarah indicate to me that Patty Kaldis at the very least would have been an unfit parent to Lauren Key, or any child, for that matter.

The whole Cameron Brown case would not be so active online if Teddie didn't bring it up, apparently to get Ken Smith's legal advice without paying for it. As one who reads a lot of true crime cases, my interest is because of the accusation, not because this guy is related to Teddie by marriage to Patty. SO far I haven't seen anything to convince me Cameron is innocent. OTC what I have read indicates Cameron may have planned the " accident".

Teddie and Patty can be free to complain in their blog. This is Loretta's and she can edit it as she pleases. I still think Patty screwed up in a spell and doesn't want to admit it.

Moe is always quite civil (as most ladies are), and certainly, is disinclined to bust off Kaldisms like "What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***." (I quote Ted whenever I can, because his comments are so incriminating that I couldn't do them justice.) Like Kent and Wayne Delia, Moe is unwelcome at CamBlog strictly on account of her views.

Heretofore, I have been tolerated -- and only just! -- on CamBlog on account of my knowledge and knowledgeable critiques of our justice system. Still, my posts are routinely censored, and the guts of various arguments Ted Kaldis can't deal with are excised under the rubric of "ad hominem attacks" -- never mind that the ad homs fired at me by Team Cam are never removed. Wayne Delia explains this phenomenon quite well:

You no doubt remember David Sears, "emsguy" from alt.atheism and alt.fan.bob-larson. Just last night I was reviewing some of his greatest hits, and there were plenty. One thing I noticed was that I (and others) totally demolished his arguments, refuting his crap for which he had no response. But John Hattan and I actually went further and did him a favor. We'd show seven or eight reasons why whatever he was railing about was wrong, and then we'd make a crack about his infected nutsack he suffered a few weeks before bragging about Jesus's miracle cures available to Christians. In a way, that was like throwing him a life preserver while he was drowning. He could cry about being persecuted as a Christian instead of addressing all the flaws pointed out in his arguments, giving him an opportunity to "save face," such as it were. And that's probably a good thing, because without it, his whole life would have crashed down around him. Some might say that already happened, since he had an online meltdown.

Ted's huge head is in pretty much the same place, over there at the Anti-Anorexic Association blob. His poofing ain't working, because of this blog's "poof insurance" policy. His position has been pretty much nuked multiple times, and he's actually smart enough to realize it. So, he turns up the abuse and the asterisks, but whines like a stuck pig (actually, a morbidly obese stuck pig) when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Just as with Sears, you're doing Ted a big favor by laying it on him as he deserves. In his small mind, that gives him a reason to censor your posts, along with the painful arguments which demolish his position. Kent Wills didn't give him that opportunity, because he was perfectly civil, polite, and gave no other reason to have his posts removed. So, Ted had no choice but to ban Kent.

Do not think for a minute that Ted doesn't realize what a mess he and Twin Sister are in. Tens, nay hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on Geragoesthemoney on the California v. Brown Trial I. The sequel will cost more. The cognitive dissonance is too great to overcome that would enable them to even consider the idea that Geragos told Ted there was "H-bomb" evidence just to get Ted to shut up and quit bugging him. There is no "H-bomb". C*m*r*n may be acquitted, he may be convicted, but either way, C*m*r*n is a permanently damaged man, and the Twin Cows have pumped a lot of money toward Geragos's bank account, which removes Patty's only attractiveness to C*m*r*n. Bottom line: Ted's looking for any excuse to make those painful facts posted on his blob go away, but Ted knows the issues remain, and Ted knows he deserves everything he's gotten. And regardless how the People vs. Brown II turns out, the worst is yet to come.

Ted might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is astute enough to know that he is getting mauled. That's why he has to resort to ad hominems (e.g., Iowa garage burglar), banning, and wholesale censorship. Censorship is the argument of the loser, whether it is the Soviet Union or our own Soviet law courts.

ken said...

Ted babbled: Ken Smith is apparently hallucinating. (But he's pussied out from USENET -- I guess he just can't take the heat.)

Ted also posted on USENET: Anyone knows where he is, tell him I'm looking for him. He needs to get straightened out on a few things.

And what are those, pray tell? That you and Patty have different fathers (which is why she was so much prettier than you)?

As for "pussying out" on USENET, it seems to me that Larry, Kent, Wayne, and everyone else has so thoroughly obliterated you that I could be accused of piling on. Larry -- a prosecutor in NYC, for those who don't know -- echoed my observation that either Geragoesthemoney has committed a disbarrable breach of ethics in refusing to use your H-bomb-class evidence, or that you lied about its existence:

I'm glad I'm not admitted in California. If I was a fellow member of the bar, and I knew this had occurred, causing Cam to remain incarcerated, I would likely have the ethical obligation to report Geragos to the bar (assuming I found Ted's claims credible, of course).

Ted further threatened: So is that where he is then? Because I certainly don't see him around here. Which means he must have pussied out. (Which I guess is what he would do if I were to challenge him to a fight on the playground after school, so what's the point? The pussy.)

In point of fact, I have posted to USENET in response to your challenge, and as of yet you have refused to respond. Sounds like you are the one who has a yellow streak. And besides, there is little I need to add to Wayne's cogent comments:

The point is something you've missed for months, if not years.

The point is that you're nothing more than a would-be schoolyard bully.

And people laugh at a schoolyard bully when he's brought down, as you've been brought down more than a peg or two with the recent complaints lodged against Geragos, based on your claim that he withheld evidence at trial which would have exonerated C*m*r*n Br*wn.

Either Geragos is guilty of legal malpractice, or else you're full of shit. While the second option is obvious, you'll get no sympathy from anyone when Geragos slaps you on the wrist for opening your big mouth.

Compuelf said...

From the K00K blog:

Felonious Ted, or Patty, posting as CI:
Kent Wills you are a pathological liar, but no one really gives a hot damn...... See ya!
Case Insider | 05.05.07 - 9:27 am | #


What did I lie about? Was the IP I posted with Saturday different that the one I had been using? Yes, it was, since I was on the lap top. The lap top is connected to a different ISP, so the IP must be different.

Maybe you think I was lying about using a lap top. While I don't expect you'll admit to visiting the links I'm about to supply, you'll see pictures of the lap top. Note that the time and date show the pictures were taken within 15 minutes of my posting to the blog.

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/ted_is_wrong/PICT0036.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/ted_is_wrong/PICT0035.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/ted_is_wrong/PICT0034.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/ted_is_wrong/PICT0033.JPG

I have a video file as well. The quality stinks, but I was using my SVP POS (piece of [BLEEP]) digital camera.

You'll find it, with your K00K blog shown, at:

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/ted_is_wrong/lap_top001.AVI

You'll even be able to hear The Princess making noise in the back ground. Yes, I know you like to LIE and claim she isn't real, but she is. Or I was able to rent a baby to make noise at the perfect time. Which is the more plausible option?

ken said...

Poof insurance:

Ted (on USENET): Is it "abusive" to tell the truth?

Well, you *have* warranted that your sister is much prettier than you, as have other members of Team Cam. It is a matter of elemental genetics that children of the same parents bear a "family resemblance"; if there is that pronounced of a difference (and if there is a God, this must be the case, as the merest thought of a female Ted would give even M. Night Shylaman nightmares) between the two of you, it would naturally follow that you must have different fathers. This, of course, begs the question of exactly what syphillis-encrusted Bowery bum your mum "did" to father you, and what she was doing catting around whilst she conceived the very next night in creating Patty.

I believe you said that all women are either scags or 'hos; it appears that your mother was either a scag (who was getting a little on the side when she made you) or a 'ho (who, at least, had the decency to do it for money when she made you). This is the nekkid truth: You literally ARE a bastard. :) And as by your own rule of decision, telling this uncomfortable truth is permissible, you have no moral right to censor comments to this effect.

However, if your goal is to construct and present a logical argument, the telling of logically irrelevant truths (e.g., "Ted's a self-loathing closet homosexual) is abusive. As the good folks at infidels.com explain:

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.


Either you believe that your rule of decision is the correct one (in which case, clearly brutal but honest comments about the Kook Kaldis Klan are eminently permissible), or you believe that it is not (in which case, you should refrain from using irrelevant criteria to remove other posters from your blog, such as whether the poster is or is not in your mind a "garage burglar"). Which is it, Ted? All we are asking for is a semblance of intellectual honesty and consistency from you.

ken said...

Poof insurance:

Ted (at USENET): But for benefit of the obtuse, I will spell it out: liars LIE!

So, because "Case Insider" lied about Kent being the only one banned from this comments board, everything she has said in defense of Cam Brown is a lie. And Lord knows how often you have lied -- it would take the resources of an international accounting firm, just to keep track.

And because liars lie, we can safely conclude that Cam Brown murdered little Lauren in cold blood.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me, Ted!

(Please note for the record that no impolite comments were used in the production of this post.)

Wayne Delia said...

Something happened to Ted lately that got him really pissed off. He went on Usenet looking for Ken to "straighten him out" by telling him what he already said on his Kook Blob - that he's censoring Ken's posts there. I think he's bent out of shape that Ken is no longer providing legal opinion and strategy suggestions for Team C*m these days.

As John Hattan always said, "Poooooooooooooooooor Ted."

WMD

forevernitefan said...

Ken says: "Moe is always quite civil (as most ladies are),"

Ken may not remember that I, while a female, I HAVE been, shall we say, less than civil on usenet. A few of my usenet posts on alt.fan.bob-larson have been quite vicious. I am saying this to clarify factually the above statement. Granted I haven't been heavily abusive, although I like to pickon "kensmithiscool" ( Bob Larson) when he shows up with his garbage.

Teddie and Patty ( Case Insider) are not ones to be honest and honorable. Is Teddie still trying to get his movie script of this case sold to a producer yet? BTW when I did post to thier blog I was not abusive. I honestly wanted Patty's explanation of the hidden cigar box's contents. The twins both know I am far too familiar with this subject of " witchcraft" to swallow their lame excuse. That is why my posts to their blog were ediited out. Their hypocrisy is typical of the Kaldis Klan

Sky said...

f/fan, good luck with the response you get from the Kooky Kaldis Klan.

IF, you manage to get one. Both of them seem to be blinded by their own stupidity.

1. They put their faith in Geragoesthemoney.

2. Blabbing all kinds of 'information' (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) all over the internet.

3. They don't know that wearing clean clothes and washing and brushing your hair makes a good impression, in Court.

3. They are oblivious of who Cameron Brown really is.

Aagh, what's the point! They are a couple of idiots.

ken said...

Poof-protected post (see the other blog):

The real action won't happen until July at the earliest, but I would have liked to hear Ted opine on his apparent rule of decision (that we are somehow morally responsible for even the unforeseen consequences of our actions -- including the lawless actions of public officials -- but public officials are in no way morally accountable for their lawless actions). By that standard, Cam and Patty have gotten pretty much what they deserve, which is why Ted manically censors any discussion of this matter, despite his other ostensible rule of decision (that I am only censored for making impolite comments).

Liars lie, Ted. Were you lying when you claimed that you only censor for impoliteness, or are you lying now? How about an answer to this question, sans your usual evasiveness? Do you agree with the rule of decision under discussion (which you have advanced before), and if not, why not?

(Please note for the record that no impolite comments were used in the production of this post.)

ken said...

POOF-proofing again....

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> I was going through some old picture files and came across the following:
>
> [http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AlkyMan.htm]
>
> This lush looks like he's soused to the gills, three sheets to the wind.
> Anybody have any idea of who this reprobate alky man is?

I'm actually rather proud of that one -- it was taken during freshman year (iow, before I became "attached"). As you can tell, I was a pretty good-looking kid -- unlike Ted.

One of our floormates -- a frat rat from Pittsburgh named Davison -- stacked his used Coors cans in a pyramid in his room. One night, it all came crashing down. We all got together and had our pics taken in the ruins.

I was actually quite sober at the time, but it made great theater. I developed it in the uni's darkroom, and sent it out as an Xmas postcard.

Speaking of butt-fucking-ugly, do tell us, Ted, who was the Bowery bum who fathered you? After all, if your twin half-sister Patty was pretty, it is biologically impossible for her to have had the same genes as this simian: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg.

Of course, as we all know from Shannon Farren's KFI reports that Patty looked frumpy, fat, fifty-plus, and generally ill-mannered, it is quite possible that you were spawned from the same simian. But if that was the case, that would have to mean that you were lying, Ted....

(Stalking Ted's losing another argument again, which is of course why he's playing the Kym Horsell "I know where you live" card.)

Wayne Delia said...

Much is going on at Usenet's misc.legal, where Ted is in the middle of a full-bore loony meltdown.

Many laughs to be had, but the two features I found the most jaw-dropping are 1) Ted's return to explicit stalking, posting a college picture of Ken Smith and overhead photos of a group of condo's, and 2) Ted's admission that he knows nothing about the C*m*r*n Br*wn case either first hand or even second hand from C*m*r*n or Mark Geragos. The obvious implication of 2) is that the "H-bomb class" evidence was mostly in Ted's imagination.

Ronni said...

Wayne:

Can you post the url of the usenet meltdown? I am in need of some entertainment.

ken said...

Poof-proofing:

For the benefit of the obtuse, Ted has spelled it out: liars LIE!

If -- as he has admitted publicly -- Ted doesn't have "H-bomb-class" evidence from a third-party, and he doesn't have "H-bomb-class" evidence that he would be able to testify to personally, by definition, he doesn't have "H-bomb-class" evidence. Thus by definition, Ted is a liar.

Ted's public admissions on USENET necessarily discredit this blog. You can pretend that they don't exist, but they are indelible.

(Please note for the record that no impolite comments were used in the production of this post.)

ken said...

Ronni:

Do a Google Groups search using kaldis@avenuecable.com for the month of May.

Personally, I fear for his cat tonight.

ken said...

Poof-proofing:

Ted: What happened on that tragic afternoon 6 1/2 years ago is VERY straightforward, and is only a VERY small part of the story.

But it is the *important* part. See the following excerpt from the indictment of Jason Midyette's parents:
2. On or about December 24, 2005 to March 3, 2006 Alexander Midyette unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly or recklessly permitted Jason Midyette to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to the life or health of the child that resulted in the death of the child; Let's translate it into Cam's case:
2. On or about November 8, 2000 Cameron John Brown unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly or recklessly permitted Lauren Sarene Key to be unreasonably placed in a situation that posed a threat of injury to the life or health of the child that resulted in the death of the child;It is a charge any prosecutor would file in the situation. Like the parents of Jason Midyette, Cam Brown "acted weird." Foprmer prosecutor Craig Silverman actually wondered out loud why Boulder DA Mary Lacy did not go for Murder One in the case, even though it might have been a case of overcharging. He asked, "Why give up that leverage?"

Cam really isn't being treated any differently than any other alleged cold-blooded child killer, and no one is going to have much sympathy for him or his story. After all, you never did before, either.

If you really think that this blog or your book is going to cause a groundswell of sympathy for Cam -- especially, given how badly you have behaved on the 'Net (you are so ashamed of your wild and often ridiculous comments that you have banned their posting here) -- you are under a delusion so strong, even dropping acid might not give it to you.

(Please note for the record that no impolite comments were used in the production of this post.)

Ronni said...

For Sarah, Mothers' Day must be a very sad time. No little hand print in plaster, no art class pinch pots, no laminated acrostics, no sticky smiles or burnt breakfast in bed.

Know, Sarah, that there are people thinking of you on this day, and wishing you peace.

Wayne Delia said...

I've been following the Usenet discussion on my Thunderbird email client, but I'll try and dig up a URL reference for Ted's latest posts...

The thread is titled "Who Is This Alky?" and was started by Ted, who posted a photo of Ken Smith in college, surrounded by a mountain of empty Coors cans. It didn't have nearly the effect Ted intended. Along with the stalker-class photo of Ken (Ted claimed he didn't know who the person was in the photo) was another stalker-class aerial photo of a neighborhood of condos, with Ted claiming he might stop by and take some photos from ground-level.

Man, did that backfire against the hippo-crite, in a big way: The discussion quickly focused on the supposed "H-bomb class" evidence, and Ted eventually conceded it was, in fact, brought up at the first trial (after given - but it was apparently so trivial that he didn't even bother identifying what it was. Ted admitted the he knew none of the details relevant to the trial neither first-hand (directly from Camoron or Geragos) nor second-hand. Ted directly admitted that nothing he knew was any better than third-hand. That backpedaling was designed for Ted to dodge the possibility that (if he was actually telling the truth) he would benefit Camoron's case by testifying. Ted then dropped another jaw-dropper by claiming he wouldn't testify, since he had nothing to offer - not even as a character witness. If he was somehow, for whatever reason, called to the stand, he might have to account for a lot of his bullshit on Usenet and his own vanity Kook Blob, including a recent hint that if called to testify, he might involve himself in "planned perjury." In another thread, in an attempt to smear another poster he's stalking, he misidentified the location of the Hatfield vs. McCoy feud as Kentucky (it was actually West Virginia).

Ted's on a nasty losing streak of about two or three weeks - not that he actually won anything before that.

cynicalhedonist said...

Here is a winner for poor ted. It seems your going to be ok after that Jethro Tull concert after all ted. But you are still an insecure hypocrite...Myth Debunking
LSD Does Not Stay in your Body Forever
by Erowid
v2.2 - May 2006
Citation: Last J. "LSD Does Not Stay in your Body Forever." Erowid.org. May 2006; erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_myth1.shtml

There is an often circulated myth that once you have taken LSD, it remains in your body forever. One thing that keeps these rumors circulating the is fact that some people (though very few) experience "flashbacks" (generally within a few months after a hallucinogenic experience). It is universally accepted, however, that these flashbacks are not the result of lsd remaining in the system.

LSD is almost entirely metabolized within a day after ingestion. Since the half-life of LSD is only a few hours, only a very small amount of LSD remains even at the end of the trip, and this is excreted in the urine. All traces are undetectable after several days and are certainly gone entirely within a couple of weeks. As detection technology improves and thresholds drop (it is now possible to detect picograms reliably), the time that incredibly small amounts of it could be detected will extend.

It has long been reported that LSD is fully metabolized almost immediately after ingestion. This was based on research done in the 50's and 60s which used instruments not sensitive enough to detect the extremely small amounts of the chemical.

Occasionally, people claim that LSD has been found in spinal fluid years after the last time LSD was taken. There is no support for this claim. If anyone knows of a research article that has looked at spinal fluid of LSD users for LSD, please let us know.

Although research in the 1960s found the half-life of LSD was around 3 hours, more recent research shows that LSD's metabolism takes several hours and its peak plasma levels occur at around 3-5 hours after ingestion. It is important to note that such research is highly dependent on the individuals who were used for the research, with metabolism of many drugs varying by up to 2-3 times, larger numbers of research subjects reduces the likelihood of having a skewed range.

From "Notes on the Persistence of LSD in Humans" by Jim Ketchum MD, working with Aghajanian:
Half-life found to be around 160 minutes mean across 40 subjects. "It seems logical to conclude that in man also, its duration in the brain is finite -- almost certainly less than 24 hours."

From: "Measurement of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in human plasma by gas chromatography/negative ion chemical ionization mass spectrometry." Papac DL, Folts RL , J.Anal. Toxicol., 14, 189-190 (1990)
In a single volunteer given about 70 ug, the apparent plasma half-life of LSD is 5.1 hr. The peak plasma concentration of 1.9 ng/mL occurred 3 hr after administration.

From: "The determination of LSD in human plasma following oral administration", Upshall DG, Wailling DG. Clinc. chim. Acta, 1972; 36:67-73.
LSD was detectable for up to five hours...

From: "A urine screening test of lysergide" Faed EM, McLeod WR. Journal of Chromatographic Science. 11, 4-6 (1973)
"LSD and its metabolites were still detectable in human urine for as long as 4 days after the ingestion of 0.2 mg of the drug."

ken said...

Bill, how do you explain flashbacks?

For flashbacks to occur, something has to happen to the human brain. While LSD might not technically "be forever," the damage it leaves behind appears to be. As a simple analogy, consider the well-established and closely studied permanent alteration of the brain by alcohol.

ken said...

Poof-proofing (these will disappear soon enough from the KoooooK Blog:

Ted: These are just plain empty words that have absolutely NO support in ANY known evidence -- NOR IN ANY THAT WAS EVER PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL.

Ted, you have given us no less than five versions of the "H-bomb" story, and why it never went off at trial. As a result, you are forced to engage in relentless ad hominem attacks against anyone and everyone who has been left utterly confused by your inconsistent claims. Your credibility is shot to hell. Given how often you have lied about this case -- especially, as it pertains to lies of omission -- can you honestly expect anyone to believe you?

At this point, I'd be more inclined to believe Bill Clinton or George Bush.
Ken | Homepage | 05.14.07 - 4:07 am | #

Ted: Moreover, as I mentioned elsewhere, how do you go about to establish "unlawful felonious intent" or "recklessness"? ... Also, how do you establish that his conduct was "unreasonable"

Easily. Recklessness and unreasonableness are objective tests, and the "reasonable man" standard is often described as the "Poindexter test." What would Poindexter do? The gut reaction of virtually everyone in this case is eminently sufficient to support the conclusion that Cam's actions were criminally reckless and objectively unreasonable -- even if the facts you allege are accepted.

This case would have been prosecuted anywhere, as the Midyette case shows.
Ken | Homepage | 05.14.07 - 4:00 am | #

Ted:Because several prosecutors had turned down this case before Craig Hum took it

How about some proof for a change? Most of us cannot subsist on your steady diet of intellectual blubber: speculation, innuendo, and supposition. If prosecutors had turned this case down, there is no way that you'd ever become privy to why; that's not something that would even be turned over to Geragos (much less, presented at trial), and as you have already admitted elsewhere, you don't have enough first-hand knowledge to testify at trial (I disagree, but know that you have destroyed your credibility on the 'Net, and can understand why Geragos didn't call you).

You've already been caught out on USENET regarding the "H-bomb" that wasn't....
Ken | Homepage | 05.14.07 - 3:51 am | #

ken said...

More poof-proofing:

Ted: If mendacity and prevarication are allowed.

Your mendacity, prevarication, and evasiveness are all we can find at this site, Ted; unilke USENET (where you can't even make your own posts 'go away'), when you are confronted by a difficult fact and/or obvious inconsistency in your position, you simply 'poof' the observation out of existence. It is a little like the old Pravda in that regard. I'd just like a few straightforward answers from you to some simple questions, which you have been ducking for years.

Ted:Nevertheless, there are more than a few "Poindexters" who might take their children to a place that has such beautiful vistas as does Inspiriation Point -- as for example the woman with her children in ths photo

That comment is both disingenuous and irrelevant. While "Poindexters" might take their kids TO IP, they are also invariably inclined to keep a watchful eye on them that borders on paranoia. No "Poindexter" would ever have let Lauren run around in even the manner you describe, where she could have been in a position to fall off the cliff on account of an untied shoelace.

That's enough to take Murder Two to the jury; as was the case with the Midyettes, Cam's behavior was weird enough to trigger alarm bells in every cop on the scene. That the jury went 10-2 for conviction, even after having your H-bomb-class evidence presented (well, that seems to be your latest story, though I have a hard time following all the changes), speaks for itself.

ken said...

Another potential poof victim:

Ted [original claim]: Because several prosecutors had turned down this case before Craig Hum took it

Ted [in response to my query]: What sort of proof do you want? They sought for 3 years to create the illusion of "probable cause" where there wasn't any -- failing time after time. At the culmination of each of these efforts they would take the case to a prosecutor and get turned down -- and then probably several more prosecutors after that and still meet with no success.


Why, testimony under oath from the other prosecutors, of course! Larry's observations would be more authoritative, but at the end of the day, here's how it works: The cops bring their case to the DA assigned to the case, and he evaluates it. If it is sufficient (in his opinion) to prosecute, he files an information, and the process is started. If it isn't (they want to win all of their cases -- helps their stats -- so they insist upon far more than probable cause), he sends it back to the cops with recommendations as to what he needs. Unless you have actual knowledge about what went down behind the walls of the DA's office, you have nothing but your own hot air and mounds of tendentious speculation -- not enough to even make popcorn with.

CountryGirl said...

Another guilty for Geragos--this time a plea. Busy guy.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5889806

Lana Michael, 34, also known as Svetlana Djangarian, is scheduled to be sentenced June 8 in what authorities say was a $1 million fraud targeting welfare-to-work programs.

In exchange for pleading guilty to misappropriating public funds and filing false tax returns, she is expected to be ordered to spend nearly four years in prison and pay $351,967 in restitution.

"It was a very sophisticated scheme. One recipient was a major criminal involved in organized crime who had been in prison before."

Attorney Mark Geragos, who represents Michael, disagreed with the characterization.

(snipped)

"It's the most disorganized group I've ever seen for somebody who is accused of organized crime," Geragos said. "Obviously, Michael is distraught by the whole thing."

Oh, and once again Ted is making false claims about Judge Arnold on Usenet saying he wanted to open the trial for more testimony when the jury deadlocked. False!

Judge Arnold asked jurors if they wanted to hear arguments in the case on the issue of implied malice. The arguments would be by Hum and Geragos. That's NOT testimony.

ken said...

CG, what is your basis for saying that Ted lied (other than the fact that Ted was saying anything, which creates a rebuttable presumption of same)?

ken said...

Ted has been seriously frazzled by the way Kent, Wayne, Moe, and Larry the G spanked him at USENET. Note the errors in this rant below:

Ted: Yes, the potential psychological instability of a candidate to the Colorado Bar (suggested by past behaviour) would be a VERY BIG inducement for the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to request a psychological examination of this candidate. To be sure, we have no hard & fast proof of this particular candidate's pschological fitness to practise law, and it is possible that he might indeed be unfit. As such, it is untenable for such a candidate to be issued a licence to practise law in Colorado until this cadidate submits to and successfully passes a psychological examination administered by a doctor of the board's choosing.

Wow. You're obviously upset, Teddie. Take a few more dittos (OxyContin). Seems you're a little frosted at how badly you were thrashed in USENET -- which is obviously why you stopped posting -- even though I wasn't one of the ringleaders. I haven't seen that many typos in a post from anyone but Moe (who types in a blur) in a long time, and such painful butchery of the language is not your normal poison (you are more perilous to logic).

Apart from the obvious constitutional problems with that statement? First and foremost, a state licensing board cannot lawfully act in a manner inconsistent with federal law and/or its own enabling statute. As such, no state licensing board could lawfully require an IME unless they paid for it, as mandated by the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. Similarly, as the Board's enabling statute does not lawfully permit it to choose the doctor, it cannot lawfully require a candidate to comply with such a request. Moreover, there are certain protocols that the Board must follow, not unlike the requirement that the prosecution turn over all evidence (and especially, exculpatory evidence) in a timely manner. Their failure to do so defeats jurisdiction under the statute, but you would sooner gnaw your arm off than admit anything like that.

In short, it is a ridiculously stupid and ill-conceived analogy, and quite obviously so.

ken said...

CI: Let's be realistic here. Lauren was never running around that sloped area or any other area of Inspiration Point.

I have never been anything but realistic. Somehow, Lauren had to end up where she did, and if it was not a callous toss or well-timed shove by an experienced baggage handler, she had to get up the speed somehow. If Lauren was never running around, an untied shoe could not have caused the incident, and our only possible conclusion is Murder One.

I will accept your concession, CI.

loretta said...

I guess CI has conveniently forgotten (or never read; or never understood; or has hit her head and has amnesia) the 995 Motion and other documents where my pal, Mark GerEgo, proffers "The Incredible Leap" theory.

He couldn't quite reconcile the physics displayed by Lauren's injuries (and notable lack of injuries that would have been sustained had she rolled down the hill from tripping or another small step) and the story that Brown told that she said, "Ah..." and disappeared off the edge.

I guess we could dredge it back up again, since it's no longer in my archives, but I believe I addressed it in this blog early on.

Anyhoo, it's clear that convenient amnesia will do no good in the second trial. There will be another Dr. Hayes if not Dr. Hayes himself. There will be the autopsy results. There will be the irrefutable laws of physics. And, unless Brown takes the stand in an Oscar-worthy performance of parental grief and stunned amazement, there will be a conviction.

Meanwhile, even if I had more time in my very busy life right now, I doubt I'd spend it jousting with Teddious. He's just nucking futs.

Be careful poking that stick too much. I'm glad he's in Collyforny and not anywhere near any of you guys. But, I wouldn't put it past him to jump on a plane and come after one of you.

He is *that* nuts. Mark my words.

loretta said...

Although I'm neither a psychologist by trade nor a lawyer (although I play both on my blog from time to time), I cannot help but note the classic symptoms Teddious displays (based on the DSM-IV) of pathological liars.

I do believe Ted suffers some kind of major personality disorder. Be it something in the schitzoid family or something in the narcissist/sociopath family is not really important.

What is important is the possibility that he has no real conscience to speak of and that all his Christian posturing is compensatory sham.

That's my take, anyway, fwiw.

I think he's about to peel totally out of the squadron.

You all probably realize that ignoring him would probably push him right off the edge; thus, that may be why you continue to poke him with a sharp stick instead.

As long as you keep him engaged, he may sustain a manageable level of coping. However, if you ignore him totally, he might go insane for good.

I dunno. Seeing him in a strait jacket might be rather amusing. But, I'm a little twisted that way.

CountryGirl said...

Ken said: CG, what is your basis for saying that Ted lied (other than the fact that Ted was saying anything, which creates a rebuttable presumption of same)?


He was saying on Usenet that Judge Arnold tried to open the trial up during jury deliberations to more 'testimony' which is not what Arnold did.

What Judge Arnold did was ask jurors if they wanted to hear arguments in the case on the issue of implied malice. The arguments would be by Hum and Geragos. That's NOT testimony.

Wayne Delia said...

KS: Looks like Alky Ted has pussied out of USENET again.... LOL!

TK: Nah, that's not it. If you're gonna wrestle a pig, you gotta get down in the mud. And I just don't feel like jumping back into that mudpit right now.

Food for thought: The last time Ted "jumped back into that mudpit" after a long absence was just twelve days ago, on May 4, when he started a thread entitled "Where's that Chump Ken Smith?"

Now, suppose Ken Smith had answered "If you're gonna wrestle a pig, you gotta get down in the mud. And I just don't feel like jumping back into that mudpit right now." How do you suppose Ted would have reacted? Would he accept that as a legitimate excuse? In the pig's own grunt, "Psuh".

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

Aaaaand.... another thought: Perhaps Geragos has taken time from his busy schedule (in which he is occasionally too busy to show up for a client's verdict or sentencing) to put the clamps back down on Ted for his Usenet posting, especially the problems that have presented themselves lately. Geragos, I imagine, doesn't see this retrial as a particularly important priority on his agenda, mainly due to the lack of a credible case he can put on, coupled with the probable fact that the Kaldis Kash Kow is running out of milk - er, money. So, maybe Ted got another "STFU" text message from Geragos if this case has any hope of maintaining even the miniscule marginal chance it has for any kind of acquittal.

WMD

ken said...

Another staggering blunder by the rotund one:

Ted: Carey v Piphus is a travesty. Piphus was caught red-handed by the principal. His "hearing" was the back & forth exchange that he had with the priincipal just after he got caught. It's not as if there was very much doubt about what was going on there.

While it seems at times that you spend so much time on the legal "short bus" that you have enough frequent flier miles for elite status, this one has me shocked. You really don't see what's wrong with the above?

Here, you have convicted a man solely on the basis of the unchallenged and unassayed word of a public servant, who acts as judge, prosecutor, and star witness. Accordingly, you have no principled basis upon which to complain when Cam Brown is indicted solely on the basis of the unchallenged and unassayed word of public servants, whose testimony is heard by a judge who made up his mind as to Cam's guilt. The justice you mete out to others, you deserve for you and yours.

At absolute minimum, due process means the right to challenge your accusers, and the right to do so before a fair and impartial trier of fact and law. Jared Piphus did not get that, which is why even Justice Rehnquist was forced to rule in his favor.

Now, do you finally see the import of Carey to Cam's case?

Compuelf said...

loretta wrote:

...

I do believe Ted suffers some kind of major personality disorder. Be it something in the schitzoid family or something in the narcissist/sociopath family is not really important.

I'm not a psychologist either, but I do have easy access to one, and all of her books (suffering bouts of insomnia over the years has given me cause to read these books as well). I do know more about the topic than the average person on the street.

Ted has many problems. Chief among them is that his mind is locked on Ken and his case so much that he can't go without posting about it for more than a few days, unless he abandons the Internet completely. It's is the single most important thing in Ted's life. You read that correctly. It's even more important to Ted than buying cookies in bulk.

His obsession with Lindsay or me isn't nearly as strong. He has tried to locate information about her, and failed. He even fell for The Source's claim that her real name is Joquina. There were inquires made about Joquina Wills made shortly after that was posted. They came up empty, as you probably would have expected.

I've not read anything from Ted that would lead me to think he has any form of schizophrenia. He's never commented about experiencing anything that could be viewed as hallucinations. If he meant that God spoke to him in an audible voice, a case could be made, but he's never committed to HOW God has spoken to him.

What is important is the possibility that he has no real conscience to speak of and that all his Christian posturing is compensatory sham.

I found something of great interest when Wayne, a man who is openly atheist, suggested that Ted accept Jesus. Not the suggestion itself, though it was and is interesting. How often does an atheist suggest someone accept Jesus? :)

What I found most interesting is that Ted NEVER told Wayne that he had already accepted Jesus. If Wayne, or anyone else for that matter, were to make the same suggestion to me, I would point out that while I appreciate their concern, I did so back in 1993. Oddly enough, it was Bob Lar$on who lead me to Him. Ken, more than anyone, will understand why that's funny.

Anyway, Ted went real quiet about the topic.

...


You all probably realize that ignoring him would probably push him right off the edge; thus, that may be why you continue to poke him with a sharp stick instead.


It's far safer to have him ranting on-line. He's already posted a photo of what is most probably Ken's neighborhood with the comment that he might drive by to get a few ground-level pictures. Taking a plane from LAX to Denver is real easy.

As long as you keep him engaged, he may sustain a manageable level of coping. However, if you ignore him totally, he might go insane for good.

If he's on-line, he's not traveling around the country looking to "settle the score." I don't know if Ken is in possession of any fire arms, but I seriously recommend that he gain access if he hasn't already.

If he should appear at Des Moines International or XNA (NW Arkansas), he will be questioned by the authorities. If he has legitimate reason(s) to be in the area, there isn't a great deal they can do. But he will be on notice that they know he's there.

And we do have fire arms. True, most are civil war era rifles, which I wouldn't fire if Bill Gates offered to sign over everything he owns, but we do have some modern hand guns. And Lindsay has a concealed weapons permit. Oh, and each of us, save The Princess, takes an annual safety course to ensure we know how to use them (in case anyone cares).

If he claims something like, "I'm vacationing here." Well... Let's be honest. Des Moines is NOT a vacation destination. And while Beaver Lake, in NW Arkansas, is nice, it's not the sort of place someone form So Cally is likely to pick as a vacation spot.

I dunno. Seeing him in a strait jacket might be rather amusing. But, I'm a little twisted that way.

As far as I know he hasn't taken any action that would justify being restrained. I think he was trying to bully Ken into silence with the pictures. At the same time, the fact that he was willing to drive all the way across Melbourne to take a picture of Kym's house proves he is willing to escalate the matter. And as I mentioned, hopping a plane to Denver is real easy.

ken said...

In re: more viewpoint-based censorship at the KOOOOOOOK Blog:

CI: from what I have seen you have left a trail of outrageous comments that speak for who you are. I don't envy you.

K: I assume that you're talking to Ted here; he has a truly remarkable footprint on USENET. After all, these are some real beauts:

CI: edited by siteowner to get rid of the Usenet smut
As the comments you deride as "Usenet smut" were all made by Ted Kaldis, why is it "outrageous" to call him a "smut peddler?" And as for my comments, how are they any more "outrageous" than Ted-quotes you won't even suffer to be repeated on this blog?

The one good thing about viewpoint-based censorship is that you can always tell when you are hitting close to the home of the pompous commissar doing the censoring. :)

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, thy name is "case insider."

ken said...

More "poof insurance":

Ken: I came into this situation with profound distrust of our authorities and as such, was inclined to look at the evidence with a jaundiced eye.

Ted: Right BOLLOCKS!


Not even LEFT bollocks, Ted! I also know from long experience that you are a compulsive liar, a flaming hypocrite, and routinely take indecent liberties with the language. As such, I have to sift through your claims, which are often highly misleading and intentionally so. Upon fair consideration of the evidence, it became clear that Cam had probably incurred criminal liability for his actions. Whether Murder One could be proven was another matter, and I told you that Cam's trial would be a very close one, and that the outcome would hinge on the adequacy of the proof. What part of that assessment was materially in error?

Ted whined: You IMMEDIATELY siezed upon the opportunity to use the situation to batter me with -- without regard as to whether there was merit to the charges brought against Cameron or not.

Translated: "That's not fair! You can't do to me what I did to you, Ken! WAAAAAAAHHHHH!"

In case you missed it, Ted, even Larry has been piling on your sorry @ss ... and you set yourself up for it by your malicious and unfair judgment of me. Every rule of decision you used to defame me applies to your precious Cammie, and with far more devastating effect. And everyone has let you have it:

Ted's huge head is in pretty much the same place, over there at the Anti-Anorexic Association blob. His poofing ain't working, because of this blog's "poof insurance" policy. His position has been pretty much nuked multiple times, and he's actually smart enough to realize it. So, he turns up the abuse and the asterisks, but whines like a stuck pig (actually, a morbidly obese stuck pig) when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Just as with Sears, you're doing Ted a big favor by laying it on him as he deserves. In his small mind, that gives him a reason to censor your posts, along with the painful arguments which demolish his position. Kent Wills didn't give him that opportunity, because he was perfectly civil, polite, and gave no other reason to have his posts removed. So, Ted had no choice but to ban Kent.

Does the TKT-FB have Matt. 7 in it? You're stuck with the deleterious ramifications of your unjust judgments. And it's a beautiful thing.... :)

Ted lied: You were filled with MUCH consternation and rage that I would have the temerity to suggest that there might indeed be merit to the concerns that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board expressed about you.

This is about the manifest unfairness of your judgments, Ted. Despite the fact that you had met me and thus, had personal knowledge to the contrary, you decided to accept the accusations of a government body without question. Well, now it is time for the rest of us to evaluate accusations made by a government body: one that was not only made but vetted by a grand jury comprised of average citizens with no axe to grind. Given the paltry standard for probable cause, should we not accept the considered judgment of twenty or so of our fellow citizens that there was enough evidence to conclude that Cam Brown probably murdered Lauren Sarene Key in cold blood? And given that the Board of Law Examiners openly confessed their improper motivation for harassing me and how that failed to persuade you, why should we give any weight to your super-sekrit and largely speculative claims that the LA authorities were prosecuting these crimes to protect some nature conservancy?

Ted whined: And this case was a convenient club that you could use against me, and you availed yourself of the opportunity -- the truth of the matter be damned.

If you think this is so morally improper, why have you been engaging in it against me for nearly ten years? Hmmmmm?

You really ought to accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, Ted. If you were a Christian, you'd know what the Bible says about your behavior, and why it is wrong.

As far as I am concerned, Cam is responsible for Lauren's death, and your ludicrous complaints as to how the State had a duty to warn of dangers that every beach bum in the state knew gain no traction with me. Whether he will be convicted of more remains to be seen, but Cam's jury voted 10-2 for Murder Two, with the others agreeing on criminal negligence.

ken said...

Another post certain to be poofed:

CI: Ken, Ted doesn't post smut here and neither will you. I don't really care who said it or when.

You're the hypocrite who took issue with me for statements I supposedly should be "ashamed" of (though you fail to identify a single one). That your TeddiBeer is (by your own candid assessment) a smut peddler is quite certainly relevant to this discussion, as is the fact that you are so embarrassed by what your racist, sexist, homophobic boyfriend has said that you will not suffer to have it republished here.

I care not a whitqwhether Ted has the language of a Marine drill sergeant, or that his god is too blindingly stupid to figure out the coarse language his asterisks are hiding. It's the hypocrisy I take issue with -- his and yours.

ken said...

Another post certain to see a quick and ignoble demise:

CI: You are here and make the statements you make for one reason....pay back.

And what if I did? "If you can't cash the checks, you shouldn't be writing them." Ted deserves to have his own spew fed back to him ... he is like the dog returning to his own vomit. That under his rule of decision, Cam Brown should be presumed a cold-blooded child-killer, undoubtedly sticks in his craw ... but all he has to do is abjure his own errors, and make the appropriate apologies.

What's so blindingly difficult about that, CI? Isn't our glory-hole queen TeddiBeer man enough to admit his many mistakes, issue the appropriate apologies, and move on? Why are you defending him so?

ken said...

Another one with a limited shelf-life:

CI: I really wish we could get beyond all of this because it is senseless, useless and takes away what might otherwise prove to be productive.

I wish we could, too. But Ted would rather gnaw his arm off than issue an honest apology, and as such, it could never happen.

I don't know whether Patty got the "cute genes," but it is self-evident that she got all of the "smart genes" in that particular exchange of same.

CountryGirl said...

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/7699427.html

Dad accused in cliff death needs new lawyer
Attorney Mark Garagos is not expected to represent Cameron Brown next time. A colleague wants the job.
By Denise Nix

Famed criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos apparently will not represent Cameron Brown in his second trial for allegedly killing his 4-year-old daughter by throwing her from a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff.

Instead, Pat Harris, Geragos' colleague, is seeking an appointment by the court to the case.

CountryGirl said...

Of course, Ted weighs in...

"You've only heard one side ..."

I am Cameron Brown's brother-in-law, and I know him quite well. I don't know Cindy, but she must know him as well, as what she says is spot-on. You folks have heard only one side of the story -- the prosecution's side. Denise Nix seems to be completely uninterested in hearing what we have to say. I'm not so sure how well the Breeze readers are served by getting only a one-sided account. But there is MUCH more to this story than what you have read so far.
- Theodore A. Kaldis

Compuelf said...

From the K00K blog:

Ken:
While it might be possible that grad student Kamil Szybinski was depressed, it is hard to argue that a drunken Danelo would be. Unless you have some access to the facts of each individual case -- which might be hard to come by -- a claim of selective prosecution may be tougher to make than you think.

Ted replied:

You're comparing apples with oranges. Danelo was killed from fall off Point Fermin, where accidents are commonplace. Kamil was found off the cliff at Inspiration Point, where accidents NEVER happen.

If accident NEVER happen at IP, it means you, Ted, have at long last accepted that the available evidence shows it's far more probable than not that Cameron murdered Lauren.

Point Fermin is under the jurisdiction of L.A. CITY, while Inspiration Point is under the jurisdiction of L.A. COUNTY.

Which doesn't matter much when it comes to a murder trial. I don't even see it coming up.

ken said...

The things we're NOT told by Team Cam....

Dad accused in cliff death needs new lawyer
Attorney Mark Geragos is not expected to represent Cameron Brown next time. A colleague wants the job.
By Denise Nix

Famed criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos apparently will not represent Cameron Brown in his second trial for allegedly killing his 4-year-old daughter by throwing her from a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff.

Instead, Pat Harris, Geragos' colleague, is seeking an appointment by the court to the case.

Normally, a public defender would represent a defendant if he or she can't afford a private attorney. Some cases, however, require the county Bar Association's Indigent Criminal Defense Appointments Program to assign an attorney.

Harris is not on the county panel, but exceptions can be made - especially if switching attorneys would cause a delay or additional costs to the court. ...

Harris said he sought the appointment because Brown is unable to afford a private attorney for the retrial. Harris would not comment on the amount Brown has already paid the Geragos & Geragos law firm.


WOW! Even Geragos doesn't think this is a winnable case! Patty and Ted are completely tapped out, and even Daddy Big-Bucks isn't going to throw any more good money after bad. Geragos didn't write a provision into the engagement contract to ensure that he would have to show up for the retrial, and the entirety of this delay is on his hands. Harris could have stepped in at any time, and the second trial would be over by now.

I think we can read between the lines here.

No trial until September. This delay is all on Cam. And at $700 an hour, we can see the damage Geragos has done to the Brown family exchequer. A cool million for the first trial is hardly outside the realm of possibility.

What's more, I think at this point we can read between the lines. Ted p*ssed Geragos off with his shenanigans and especially, the H-bomb-class evidence that blew up in his face. Specifically, we know that Kent Wills forwarded the pertinent information to the Bar, and I know that Geragos couldn't be overjoyed about having to answer for that -- which he would have to do as a matter of course.

Team Cam has been facing some pretty dark days; the anger is palpable.

And Denise Nix is back on the job. Ohhh, Denise, ooby-ooo! :)

CountryGirl said...

"He's relieved there was no conviction and we're hopeful we can prevail and bring him home," Geragos said, adding he plans to return for a second trial if there is one.

"I've never dropped a client on a mistrial and I'm not going to start now. ... The case does not get any better for the prosecution."


He must have had his fingers crossed when he made that statement.

For all his posturing on his innocent client, how could he leave an innocent man in jail all these years and nearly another year after the mistrial?

My thoughts to out to Sarah as it must be agonizing in yet another delay for justice for Lauren.

CountryGirl said...

Two words GerEgo: pro bono

Kent Wills said...

Ken wrote:

Specifically, we know that Kent Wills forwarded the pertinent information to the Bar, and I know that Geragos couldn't be overjoyed about having to answer for that -- which he would have to do as a matter of course.

When I read the article from The Breeze, I had to wonder if Ted's actions weren't responsible for Geragos basically saying, "Later!"

You know Marc was none too pleased to learn that he had been accused of ethical and legal violations by is client's brother-in-law. It would be great to know just what was said when Ted had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with Marc over it.

Odds are we'll never know. I don't see Geragos making a public statement, and Ted's is hoping that by ignoring the whole thing, we'll all forget.

Kent Wills said...

CG wrote:

For all his posturing on his innocent client, how could he leave an innocent man in jail all these years and nearly another year after the mistrial?

Because Cameron WANTS to be there. Cameron has always had the power to get the speedy trial clock started. CAMERON has the ability to tell his attorney to file the paperwork to get it going. He hasn't.

On this point, Geragos' hands were tied.

Kent Wills said...

Dad accused in cliff death needs new lawyer
Attorney Mark Garagos is not expected to represent Cameron Brown next time. A colleague wants the job.


Interesting article. And even more interesting comments.

Kent Wills said...

I see Ted is in an argument with someone using the name "Truth Teller." I don't expect Ted will stay long. He doesn't have poof power at The Breeze.

So, own up. Who is Truth Teller?

CountryGirl said...

Not me! TT does say s/he was there for the trial.

ken said...

Not I.

Ted is having a very bad weekend. :)

loretta said...

Gosh. I hate to say I told ya so...but...well, I told ya so.

I called this one waaaay back when.

Bad news for the Browns.

Kent Wills said...

Team Cameron is tapped. There is no more money to pay Marc's fees.

It's funny in a sad sort of way. It's been said, accurately so, one only gets the justice they can afford. Cameron is going to be found guilty of some crime related to Lauren's death.

If it's manslaughter, time served would likely be all he'll get. Team Cam should consider that a win and run with it.

Kent Wills said...

CG wrote:
Not me! TT does say s/he was there for the trial.

Actually, TT stated s/he was there to hear the jury instructions, or at least a part of them.

We can presume TT was there for the instructions, if nothing else, since Ted rapidly changed his tune when the truth was brought out.

Skye said...

Well, look what Cam has to go home to. Wouldn't you rather stay in a steenkin prison?

Come on, be honest:-

~prison~ ~Patty~?

~prison~ ~Patty~?

No contest, is there?

ken said...

Poof-proofing:

Ken: The ostensible posting of a Google-Earth aerial photo of my home was intended for precisely what legitimate purpose, Ted?

Ted: To get a rise out of you. (And it worked.)

Ken: It's stalking behavior, Ted.

Ted: Bah! If it were true stalking behaviour, I would have shown up on your doorstep.


Not according to the experts. From one prominent site on the topic:

There are several signs that are good indicators of stalking behavior. It is also important to consider the intensity of such behaviors. ...

4. Manipulative behavior (for example: threatening to commit suicide in order to get a response to such an "emergency" in the form of contact).


You have admitted once again to engaging in stalking behavior directed at me, as the literature defines it. What's more, you have openly admitted to a pattern of stalking behavior, including the tracing of my posts to Tahiti (that you are hopelessly inept is beside the point) and calling me out on Google. You have engaged in this practice as directed to others (e.g., Kym Horsell, whose house you took a photo of and posted on-line in an attempt to intimidate him), and have attempted to stalk Lindsey Wills (according to Kent, whom I believe on this point).

You are a stalker, Ted. You are mentally ill. Please seek immediate treatment, before you really do hurt someone.

Kent Wills said...

Ken wrote:

You have engaged in this practice as directed to others (e.g., Kym Horsell, whose house you took a photo of and posted on-line in an attempt to intimidate him), and have attempted to stalk Lindsey Wills (according to Kent, whom I believe on this point).

You don't need to take my word for it. Ted has admitted that he's tried to find information about her, and failed. This is due more to his not knowing her real name then his incompetence.

Ted has proved he has NO problem with lying, but to claim you've tried to stalk someone when you haven't? I don't think even Ted is that stupid.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

Ken, if you don't have easy access to a fire arm right now, GET IT! Jumping a plane from LAX to Denver is REAL easy. That Ted hasn't been violent towards his stalking victims in the past doesn't mean he can't be in the future.

Kent Wills said...

Will this get poofed? I'm agreeing with Patty (whom I believe to be Case Insider), so there's no legitimate reason to do so.

CI:
The fact is, Baca is in contempt of Court, imo.

Me:

Most would agree with you. The judge sentenced Paris to jail, not house arrest.

Kent
Kent Wills | 06.08.07 - 8:03 pm | #

ken said...

Poof-proofing:

Ted: It wasn't a problem for me. Was it a problem for you?

So, the travails of an (alleged) cold-blooded baby-killer are not in our department? If that is the attitude we should all have, you might as well pack your tents and get lives.

CI: Ken, if I had a nickel for every time you have asked that question........

If you have to presume that Kent and I are the only visitors to your silly website, you might as well take it down and go to the beach. (Of course, Ted will have to warn Greenpeace....)

Wayne Delia said...

Ted's busy "not stalking" on the KKK Blob again...

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

TK: Ken: Do you recognise this highway exit?: (web site URL) If I were to make the sharp hairpin turn to the right at the end of the ramp seen here, follow the road down a ways, and take the first right as the road curves around to the left, then follow that road and take the third right, and then turn into the first parking lot on the right, what would I find in [I believe it's] the 2nd building on the right?

For some reason, I'm reminded of O.J. Simpson's botched book attempt, "If I Did It." Perhaps Ted's manuscript on the C*m*r*n Br*wn trial got unanimously rejected, so he's now writing a book about how he's not a stalker, but if he was, here's how he might do it.

WMD

Compuelf said...

Wayne wrote:
Perhaps Ted's manuscript on the C*m*r*n Br*wn trial got unanimously rejected, so he's now writing a book about how he's not a stalker, but if he was, here's how he might do it.

The difference being, Ted keeps offering proof BARD that he is a stalker.

Kent

ken said...

Stalker Ted: What "stalker"? And where have I lied? You notice that this is just a highway. And I am in the middle lane. Though I could have very EASILY popped by and snapped a picture of {you-know-what}, I couldn't be bothered. I just kept on going.

Why would you have taken that picture, if not to further your stalking behavior? It's taken in the middle of the road, in the middle of a rainstorm, for cry-iy! It's NOT a photo a non-stalker would take.

Wayne Delia said...

TK: What "stalker"?
I imagine that's only one of many words, the definition of which Ted doesn't know.

TK:And where have I lied?
We've got it narrowed down to "Anytime Ted says or writes anything."

TK:You notice that this is just a highway. And I am in the middle lane.
As the sage often said, "Pick a lane, Ted."

TK:Though I could have very EASILY popped by and snapped a picture of {you-know-what}, I couldn't be bothered. I just kept on going.
Translated: "The C*m*r*n Br*wn case has gone into the dumper. Patty and I are broke. Geragos is gone. Nobody's paying attention to me anymore. So I'll bring out the trusty old trick of creating the impression I'm a ruthless stalker, without actually doing any stalking activity as I define it. If that doesn't work, I'll intimidate people by appearing to curse with extreme profanity, disguising the vowels with asterisks to fool Jesus, of course."

WMD

ken said...

As expected, the evidence of Ted's stalking behavior suddenly disappeared from the Kook Blog.

Wayne Delia said...

That's either good news or bad news. At the risk of the obvious embarrassment of being censored on his own blog, Ted may have gotten the message that what he thinks isn't evidence of stalking can actually get him into moderate to serious trouble. But it also might reinforce Ted's idea that he can say whatever he wants, then simply poof his own posts (and the responses of others) as if they were never posted. That strategy is bound to catch up with him in real life rather quickly.

The bad news, of course, is that Ted's absolutely given up on addressing the issues facing Team C*m*r*n in the upcoming trial - not surprisingly, "Case Insider" and all the other anonymous supporters have also taken a hiatus when the going got tough (and the high-profile lawyer got going, ba-doom ching). He's now gone back to his "happy place" - creating impressions he's not willing or able to live up to, acting like a stalker without technically stalking, and threatening legal action against Kent Wills ("I'm no felon, you veritable felon. Your FALSE assertion here represents actionable libel") on Usenet, in alt.fan.bob-larson. He's patterning himself after a character played by John Larroquette in a recurring role on "The Practice," if I remember correctly, who smugly pretended he was much smarter than he actually was, which eventually resulted in his own downfall. He's been stung hard and hurt bad, particularly by Ken, Kent, and to a lesser extent, myself. His life is irrevocably changed, and it's getting more likely that he'll lash out in some sort of revenge through blind rage instead of slinking away in shamed exile - especially if/when Camoron gets convicted. Camoron's legal troubles aren't caused by him murdering his daughter, as Ted will see it - they were caused, somehow, by Ken, Kent, and Wayne, or at least Ted's already miserable life was made much more miserable by that group. And Ted's ultimately fragile hurt feelings, in his view, might supercede any laws against avenging those hurt feelings in any way that Ted chooses, so Kent's advice on getting firearm protection might be wise.

But Ted probably isn't as stupid as he's made himself out to be on Usenet over the past few years. There's one advantage of all the trials, literally and figuratively, which the Kooky Kaldis Klan are going though: Ted gets a ringside seat to see, firsthand, the trouble and cost involved with defending oneself against serious criminal charges, which (I would guess) would tend to cut through any fantasy world he might be living in currently. On the one hand, he may threaten, or actually attempt to carry out, an attack against any one of us; on the other hand, though, he runs the highly probable risk of eventually being held criminally accountable for his own actions, going through the same kind of hell Camoron finds himself experiencing, and even Ted can understand that his own interpretation of the law frequently isn't the way the law is applied in the real world. In any case, I'm just interested in the outcome of this murder trial, since I have a daughter who is about the same age as Lauren Key was.

WMD

Kent Wills said...

Ken wrote:
As expected, the evidence of Ted's stalking behavior suddenly disappeared from the Kook Blog.

Not to worry. If evidence is ever needed, it can be found here:

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/stalker_ted_01.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/stalker_ted_02.jpg

I have them on other two web sites as well. Plus archived in my Gmail account. And the Gmail copies have no censorship.

Kent

senor miguel estaban IV said...

Senor Kaldis, is true naw you be seek plea for brother Cam? Ees gooh eef tru, cam bown be vedy vedy bad person. ees naw gooh he keel leetle gur. vedy gooh he van plea to mansluter and agree soo 30 year een beeg hou. look forvard soo augus 19 for plea.

Anonymous said...

Eh? Is someone on drugs?

Skye said...

The lawyers must have lost interest in him. Probably as disgusted as the rest of us.

Don't think he has once shown remorse or grief. Pig!

wayne said...

TK: As Sam [Adams] has long ago passed from the scene (on to his eternal reward), all that's left is his writings ... and the beer. (And it's a mighty good beer, too.)

Ted thinks it's "mighty good" because he spiked it with LSD.

What's going on with the Camoron Brown trial? Any date at all in the foreseeable future? Any information from Ted is worthless, because he's too preoccupied trying to act clever, answering questions without providing any useful content at all. I noticed that his anonymous sock-puppets only come out when he's available for posting, and they've been silent for a long time while he was silent. Lately Ted's got a huge cognitive dissonance blind spot - he's removed all recent references to his stalking Ken by posting pictures of freeway exits, and cannot respond to any questions about those actions. He's a puppet - although a very fat, stupid puppet.

Won't somebody please pay attention to him on his "blob" so that his sock puppets have something to do?

WMD

loretta said...

Nahh. He's sad. Just sad.

I don't know what's going on with the trial or whether the rumor posted above is true.

Nobody seems to care anymore.

Just sad.

Skye said...

I care! I want that bastard drawn and quartered!

wayne said...

Oh, I care too, but I took the original comment to mean "Nobody [on Team Cam] seems to care any more." Even Ted's gone silent on the blockbuster book/movie deal he was working on.

I've mentioned this reason before, but I care because I have a daughter who is the same age as Lauren would have been, and I'm curious as to how and why anyone could do something like that to a child that young and beautiful.

WMD

wayne said...

For the past few months, to relieve the boredom of absolutely nothing happening in the Camoron Brown trial, I've been following the story of Casey Serin, identified on BoingBoing and other uberblogs as "The World's Most Hated Blogger." Story in a nutshell: A Uzbekistan immigrant, 24 years old, taken in by real estate "gurus" promoting RE flipping strategies for quick and easy wealth, ends up about four hundred grand in debt after all eight of his properties get foreclosed. Runs up his and his wife's credit limits, associates with partners in various business ventures such as a Da Vinci Code book ripoff (creatively titled "The Foreclosure Code) and an attempt to sell his popular blog, http://www.iamfacingforeclosure.com, which closed its doors this morning. On his blog, Casey described in considerable detail his goals, strategies, and failures - which amounted to him admitting to multiple instances of mortgage fraud ("stated income" liar loans, also claiming each of the eight properties were his primary residence). FBI is closing in on him. There are a couple of "hater" sites following his moves (such as www.caseyhaterz.com) and he was recently featured on ABC Nightline a few nights ago as a poster boy for the upcoming, inevitable housing/financing meltdown. Everything came to a head when the Feds started looking for him, his wife filed for legal separation, and he is being hit with a couple of civil lawsuits. A genuine Internet Train Wreck, to a much higher degree than the Camoron Brown trial circa September 2006.

There are many similar aspects of the coverage of Casey Serin and Camoron Brown, which I am using as a gauge of how likely I am to follow the respective train wrecks.

1) Is there reliable coverage and sources of information available? In both cases, yes.
2) Do the chief apologists need to be taken down a peg or two? In both cases, yes.
3) Is there fast-moving, constant action happening? In Serin's case, yes (up until this morning), in Brown's case, no.
4) Is the future defendant a reprehensible scumbag? In both cases, yes.
5) Is there (or will there be) a degree of "schadenfreude" in what appears to be an inevitable outcome? In both cases, yes.

The "World's Most Hated Blogger" history and current events can be found at www.caseypedia.com.

WMD

Skye said...

Sometimes I do misinterpret things, Wayne.

I still want him drawn and quartered, though. Desperately!

Skye said...

Just a quick observation. Aug 19 is a Sunday. So? Do people plea on Sunday's?

Just askin'!

Kent Wills said...

I wouldn't expect a plea to be entered on a Sunday. I don't know that it's not allowed, but what judge is going to want to come in on a Sunday to take a plea?

Kent Wills said...

Wayne wrote:
On his blog, Casey described in considerable detail his goals, strategies, and failures - which amounted to him admitting to multiple instances of mortgage fraud ("stated income" liar loans, also claiming each of the eight properties were his primary residence). FBI is closing in on him.

He's in A LOT of trouble.
You can only have ONE primary residence, of course.

He's not the first person I've heard trying such tactics. I've yet to hear of anyone being successful at using them, though I suppose I wouldn't. Would you admit to it, if you got away with it?

The key to real estate is to work small. If you try to make millions overnight, you'll go broke, if you're lucky, or end up in prison, as I expect Casey will.

Having eight homes at one time is a bit much.

And the claims of some that Galina is innocent is fairly laughable. She might not have known the extent to which Casey had broken the law, but bar her being more blind to the truth then Ted, she must have known something.

She won't, and shouldn't, get the full brunt of the punishment, but she's not the innocent victim some make her out to be.

Kent Wills said...

This should get Ted and his sock puppets busy for a day or two. You know he HATES it when I show his ban doesn't work.

I forgot to mention that in addition to the potential conflict of interest Judge Arnold jumped through hoops to get the case, and to hold on to the case. In light of all that, does he still have immunity?

Any evidence that Judge Arnold did this? It's easy to claim he did, but without something to back it up, it means nothing.

Kent
Kent Wills | 08.04.07 - 10:18 pm | #

Skye said...

Thank you for responding to my question, Kent. Also, for exposing Kooky Kaldis for the idiot that he is.

Kent Wills said...

No problem, Skye.

I'm a bit surprised that my post hasn't been poofed. Seems Ted can't be bothered to check in to see what, if anything has been posted.

Or he's finally accepted that he's unable to block people.

Skye said...

Or, he could be where he should be...in a padded cell.

Kent Wills said...

Possible. He's not active on Usenet or his blog. Finding out exactly what's going on will take more time than Ted's worth, so I'll likely never know why he's so quiet.

wayne said...

Any plea lately? Any action at all? Camoron still sitting in jail, waiving his right to speedy trial?

Where's Teddie?

WMD

Compuelf said...

Nothing is going on at the moment.

Ted is hiding. It's his new thing. Not even Ken's posting to Usenet can bring him out.

Of course, he knows I'm ready to ask the questions he can't honestly answer without admitting he's been far less than honest with us regarding Cameron's case.

Kent

countrygal said...

Still thinking about Sarah, especially on Lauren's birthday.

Ken said...

It's almost half-past September. Is there a trial on the foreseeable horizon?

Compuelf said...

I'd like to go off topic for a moment.

For those who believe in pray, I ask that you pray for Roni. Some of you know why. For those who don't, just pray for general protection and healing.

For those who don't believe in prayer, I ask that you do whatever it is you do when someone you care about is facing a difficult time.

ken said...

Has anyone bothered to find out when the trial is? Did Cam plead out? I forget where that site was that had all the info on him.

Ken said...

In case anyone still cares, Cam's next appearance date is 11/29. Another continuance, and another delay.

Cam must be waiting for Sarah to die.

countrygal said...

He should have his court appointed PD by now. Doesn't seem anyone is in a hurry to get the 2nd trial started.

Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:
In case anyone still cares, Cam's next appearance date is 11/29. Another continuance, and another delay.

Delays tend to benefit the defendant. Witnesses die, memories become fuzzy, and so on. From a defense point of view, the delays make a lot of sense.

Cam must be waiting for Sarah to die.

Along with other witnesses.

Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:

Has anyone bothered to find out when the trial is? Did Cam plead out? I forget where that site was that had all the info on him.

http://app4.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm

Compuelf said...

Since my posts have a way of getting poofed at the k00k blog, I'm doing a C&P here.

Ken (in italics)
Cam's fast-approaching four years in the can. 1,423 days and counting, and even if there is a trial in December (not very damn likely, given the vacation schedule), he will have spent a tenth of his life in jail.

I think everyone agrees this is unacceptable. Yes, Cameron can start the speedy trial clock any time he wishes. Even though he's chosen not to, the wait is unacceptable!

Of course, our government never makes misteaks....


Seems to depend on who is on the receiving end of the mistake. When it's (possibly) Cameron, those in power screwed up big time. If it's anyone else, they did no wrong.

I laugh at your discomfiture, and cackle at your family's misfortune -- because YOU have earned it personally.

My sympathy for Ted is non-existent. However, Patty is another matter. I've seen nothing to indicate she's done anything to deserve this. If this effected only Ted, I would be in complete agreement with you. As it stands, her being Ted's sister isn't her fault and she shouldn't be punished for his behavior.

Your malice and pride mix commingle like a toxic brew, and you're belching it up ... I am sure it is leaving a bitter taste in your mouth.

Further, Ted's intentional actions have served to harm Cameron to a degree.


Kent Wills | 10.15.07 - 11:40 am | #

Compuelf said...

Another post guarantied to be poofed.

Ken:
I can't imagine that everybody was just out to 'get' Phil Spector, Robert Blake, and some nobody who broke baggage for a living.

Me:
There is no conspiracy to "Get Cam." Ted would like us to think there is some sort of conspiracy, but the truth is, a baggage handler isn't going to be in a position to warrant such. He isn't going to know anything damning about anyone in power.
Kent Wills | 10.15.07 - 11:34 am | #

Ken said...

Better get this one in, while I can:

Case Insider: Our prayers go out to the Natalie Yeargan family. While there are some who will always try to find fault and do whatever verbal damage they can to create further pain, most people understand that many are touched by unfortunate and unforeseen tragedies of the greatest magnitude. The loss of a beautiful child is certainly the most awful challenge some are asked to endure. It only takes a moment for our lives to become forever changed. I am sorry for the Yeargan's tragic loss. We can all sit around and pass judgment, but I hope those who chose to do so will take pause and remember that only by the grace of God go I. I feel saddened and sorry for those who cast stones at the tragic circumstances of others.

To the Brown family, my heart, prayers and support is with you all. To Sarah, may God's grace and goodness be with you.

Me (quoting an article):

Natalie [Yeargan]'s case is atypical because of her age and gender, said Tom Myers, co-author of the 2001 book Over the Edge: Death in Grand Canyon.

Men in their 20s or 30s are overwhelmingly the victims of falls from the rim, said Myers, whose research dates to 1925.

"This little 4-year-old girl is really unusual," he said.

Myers said young men who fall generally put themselves in a dangerous position by getting close to the edge for a great photo or doing daredevil stunts like jumping from one rock outcropping to another.

Parents' hypervigilance and perhaps an innate caution in young children may explain the rarity of childhood falls, he said.

"Even a preschooler or a grade-schooler tends not to put themselves in these dangerous situations," Myers said. "They maybe instinctively don't want to chance it."

He said there had been nearly 50 fatal falls from the rim of the Canyon since 1925.

Previously, the youngest person to die of a fall in the Canyon was 13, he said.


http://www.azcentral.com/ arizona...yonkid1011.html.

The rangers are investigating this as an accident, almost certainly because Natalie was the daughter of a stable family, which implies that the parents would have no colorable motive (like child support) for ensuring that she had an "accident." Of course, if the parents took out a $1M life insurance policy on her last month, your mileage will vary.

Interesting observations (young kids won't do this on their own, and this is the first death of any child even close to that age), which begs an intriguing question: Of all the victims of the Rancho Palos Verdes cliffs, how many have been young children? I'm angry at myself for not raising it before.

If I were defending (or even prosecuting) Cam, I would really, really, really want to know the answer:

Q. "Detective Leslie, has it ever occurred to you that this has happened before?"
A. "No."
Q. "Were you aware that six-year-old Natalie Jones fell off the edge of Portuguese Point in 1992?"
A. "No."
Q. "Were you ever aware that five-year-old Patty Smith fell off the edge of Portuguese Point in 1969?"
A. "No."

Of course, if it's never happened before, it's probably a bad fact (unless you are Craig Hum, in which case I would bring it up). Have you guys done the research and if not, why not?

Compuelf said...

They have done the research and they do know the truth. However, Ted and Patty have invested so much in declaring Cameron innocent that they simply CAN'T change now.

Ted is psychologically UNABLE. Patty may be as well, though it's equally possible pride and shame (for being conned by Cam) won't allow it.

wayne said...

As many of you know, I am a huge fan of the Boston Red Sox, who have just won the 2007 World Series. Among many of the team's heroes, pictures of our first baseman suddenly struck me as an amazing coincidence.

Camoron Brown and Boston Red Sox first baseman Kevin Youkilis - Separated at birth? You be the judge!

WMD

Ken said...

We're still in mourning here in the Rockies -- not only did the Rocks get their tails handed to them (had to do with a ridiculously long layoff), but the Broncos got beat by Brett Favre on the first play during overtime.

As for Youkilis, they're both Greek to me!

Ken said...

Ted finally published the autopsy. My comments (from the udder blog):

Autopsy report: "....when she either fell or was pushed."

"...the autopsy was felt to be consistent with a suicide-like jump or an assisted throw...."

It looks as if the coroner was giving Cam the benefit of the doubt from the outset, recognizing nonetheless that there was some evidence suggestive of foul play. Dr. Berkowitz appears to have been reciting what had been told to her (e.g., "Lauren's teachers describe her as a cautious child, fearful of animals, and not a risk-taker."), as a foundation for her professional opinion. I note for the record that she was called in quickly, and that her teachers had no particular reason to lie.

As for the narrative, I can see how it might be excluded from testimony. The best evidence here is eyewitness testimony; the rest of the narrative can be used for impeachment purposes.

As for your "lost hour," the materiality of that seemingly insignificant fact does not appear on the face of it to be clear. Remember that to you, this is the most important homicide you will in all likelihood ever be around in your lifetime; to people who do this for a living, it's just another day at the office.

Plus, how do you know that Inspector Moses was right, and Detective Leslie was wrong? When you are under oath, you are asked to testify to the truth to the best of your recollection -- NOT to what some piece of paper says. It may be that (a) Detective Leslie was mistaken or (b) that Inspector Moses was. I don't know, but what I do know is that if (1) the timing was legally significant and (2) Geragos knew about it, he should have questioned Leslie on that point in cross-exam, introducing the redacted portion of the autopsy into evidence. Even if the testimony was in error, the jury eventually hears the truth. No harm, no foul -- the system works.

This is what always makes me cringe, Ted: What you think you "know" about the law is almost always dead wrong and as a result, you end up making mountains out of molehills and looking the absolute fool. There may be better examples of misconduct, but that's where the knowledgeable reader starts, he's going to dismiss you as a crackpot from the get-go and move on.
----------------------
If it disappears, fear not; I snagged it.

wayne said...

Dane Metcalf (on Usenet): "And natural justice demands that Brown never have another free minute of his life."

Fat, Stupid Ted Kaldis: "Natural justice, I submit, demands that whatever INJUSTICE you would wish upon another should instead befall YOU."

The fat fuck doesn't even realize the irony of his own words.

WMD

Compuelf said...

Ted does have a double standard about nearly everything. And in his mind, this is perfectly acceptable.

countrygal said...

Yesterday marks 7 years. Sarah, I'm thinking of you.

ken said...

Archiving it from the udder blog:

Stalker Ted: Alas, after all these years, Ken still has not learned about "karma" -- which is actually a Bhuddist/Hindu restatement of God's Law of Sowing and Reaping ("As ye sow, so also shall ye reap"). Ken, please, repent of this wickedness, or else you shall surely reap in like manner as you have sown, except in many times over. It is God's Law, and it cannot be disannulled, but will rather certainly come to pass -- except that you repent and withdraw your words.
Physician, heal thyself!!! Cam Brown is reaping what he has sown (and literally, in a sense), and your two decades of unrelenting malice on USENET are coming back to bite you in the arse. You are the most unsympathetic of spokesmen, as you are being judged by the endless array of harsh and unforgiving judgments you have doled out since long before I encountered you on USENET. If this perp were anyone other than your baby-killin' brudder-in-law, you would be screaming for his execution, and we both know it. And now, you are getting it many times over -- not just from me, but from everyone who you have treated like dirt on the 'Net. It is coming to pass in your life, because you have refused to repent and withdraw your words.

As for what I've said about your precious Camoron, my comments have been for the most part measured and tame. John and Ken covered the waterfront, and Jonezy, Kent, Loretta, and Wayne have dished it out for you on a massive scale. From Australia to Zambia, Cam will always be known as the sorry excuse for a human who threw his own daughter over a cliff ... as everyone in the world knows that it is virtually impossible for a SoCal jury to convict anyone with a celebrity attorney representing him, no matter how guilty.

Whilst I'm off walking on the beach or playing in the surf, Cam is dining in the Joey Buttafucco Suite at the Hotel California. And yes, I will be there in a tad, as I'm just doing a little research during downtime. Cam, otoh, has been caged for nearly a quarter of his adult life. So, what did Cam do to deserve this, if not murder his daughter?

CI: Might I suggest, Ken, that you stop holding Ted responsible for the ill passed along to you by others? You obviously feel that you were treated unfairly and I think it is pretty pitiful that anyone bothers to rub your nose in it. But really, he has done little to push your buttons, and what is really sad about all of this is the fact that I KNOW Ted Kaldis wishes no ill will upon you. In fact, he has said more than once that you are a very decent and friendly person. What amazes me is that you don't bother showing that side of yourself more often. Oh well.....

Ted asked you before what it is that you want him to do? So what is it?
In one word? Apologize. If it is inappropriate for us to assume that Cam is guilty of murdering his illegitimate four-year-old daughter by throwing her off a seacliff simply because he has been indicted by a grand jury then surely, it is inappropriate for anyone to presuppose that I am in any way mentally deficient simply because a public agency accused me of being so to save their sorry asses from civil liability. He knows that he is in the wrong, but he is too proud to admit it.

While it is unfortunate that anyone else should have to suffer, Ted deserves every scintilla of misery his family is suffering. It's karma, served with interest. And whether it comes in the form of remarks about Patty borrowing his black dildo or fair critiques of his baseless whines, anything that compounds his pain is a good thing. Ask Shylock, the Jewish merchant.

Remember that forgiveness presupposes repentance, and Ted is not a penitent man.

CI: You might benefit from getting right with God. You have been tested by what has happened to you in your life. What you chose to do with this opportunity is up to you. Each of us carry the burden of our own tests and decisions that result from those tests. Most of us struggle with how we can achieve our goals in the most effective and positive way. Right now we need to find the most effective way of demonstrating to an ignorant world that our system of justice is broken. Cam's case happens to be our vehicle. God help us in finding the right road.

Cam's case is a rusted-out '79 Yugo. That 9-1-1 call was more than enough to suggest his probable guilt, irrespective of what actually happened on that cliff. As for our system of justice being broken, Cam is evidently sitting in that cell because he wants to, as he has eschewed every reasonable opportunity to force a speedy trial. How do you cry for a man who won't even try to help himself? Could it be that his release would disturb his romantic relationship with Bubba? You explain this one to me, because I can't even begin to fathom it.

The next anniversary on offer is the one where Cam is in the can longer than Lauren was alive. Surely, just desserts ... eh, Teddi?

As for my "getting right with God," which one is on offer? Ahura-Mazda? Odin? Al'lah? Ganesh? There are so many hokey man-made gods from which to choose (including that dead charlatan Jesus), and so little evidence that the true God of the universe cares any more about us than the common cockroach that there is no point in trying. If God wants something from me, he will contact me directly....

What I have said about Cam hasn't been anywhere near 'over-the-top', and you know it. John and Ken have covered the waterfront there, to delightfully amusing effect.

ken said...

Archiving comments on udder blog:

Ted fraudulently rewrote: "The government is still investigating, unlike in the Cameron Brown case, where they made up "evidence" and have unjustly and maliciously persecuted a loving father."

Sorry, Ted, that dog doesn't hunt. I have a close mate here who, as fate would have it, is also named Cameron, and has an illegitimate daughter who is about the same age as Lauren would have been, had your Cam not been so irresponsible or malicious. While he is a classic risk-taker --racing motorbikes at 300 kph -- he is amazingly protective of his daughter, and never would have come close to putting her in the precarious position your Cam did.

They are a sterling example of how responsible adults just nut it up and deal with a situation like this. They put her welfare above theirs, subordinating their personal differences (avoiding the snarkiness you see in the Kook Kaldis Klan, like Patty's reported crack about Sarah smacking Lauren around) to give her the best life they can. And she even looks like Lauren. In a very real way, even though she isn't mine, some of this is personal with me.

Even if we accepted the facts as you claim them to be, I find it impossible to find your Cam to be held completely blameless in this matter. Criminally negligent homicide would be a bare minimum, as it was for the jurors in the first trial. It may eventually be that police incompetence will result in an acquittal, but it cannot be said that justice was not in some material way done.

I find it offensive that you would not only quote me, but deliberately misquote me -- it shows the nonexistent moral character of the (merely self-professing, as Ted's life shows no Christian virtues of which I am remotely aware) "Christian."
Anonymous | 11.24.07 - 2:03 pm | #

Ted whinged: It appears that the evidence is pointing clearly and unequivocally toward it actually being an accident -- as would the real evidence in the Cameron Brown case, if only they bothered to gather it. Exculpatory circumstantial evidence like the Yeargans' understandable alibi (in like manner as Cam taking Lauren to a breathtakingly scenic and spectacular vista), their stable marriage (analogous to Cam's love for Lauren), and their parents' understandable reaction (like Cam's superhuman effort to reach Lauren after making the 9-1-1 call) do tend to lengthen the odds of foul play -- as would the evidence in the Cam Brown case, if only they bothered to consider it.
Cam's "alibi" is hardly compelling, as the vista on Portuguese Point is substantially the same, and a lot easier to get to. Cam's love for Lauren is certainly a debatable fact, according to the witnesses. As for Cam's reaction, as John and Ken pointed out so eloquently, the 9-1-1 call is positively damning. You see the facts as you so desperately want them to be, as opposed to thosev of us who can examine them more objectively.

cynicalhedonist said...

It may have been argued before but I still need to point out the fact that Laurens scrapes and scratches are probably due to her being washed around on the rocks by the waves. Not by "tumbling" down the face of the cliff. She was in the water being pushed around by the waves for at least 15 minutes before she was retrieved by Cam.

Skye said...

So, how is that speedy trial going, then?

wayne said...

There seems to be a new entry for Cameron Brown at http://app4.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm
for today, looks like the only change was Bail=0 to Bail=NO BAIL.

WMD

ken said...

Latest entry by the LASD: Next hearing on 1/30/08. At this rate, it isn't going to matter whether he is convicted on Murder Two.

wayne said...

Breaking news about Camoron today, but it's not about his latest 60-day delay. Rather, the child-killer will be arraigned on February 8, 2008, on a felony charge of custodial possession of a weapon. Camoron is a baaaad-asssss.

wayne said...

...and, I suppose, I could have included a URL to the story:

http://www.knbc.com/news/15181533/detail.html

CountryGirl said...

So, is Geragos still defending this POS or not? I thought he had a PD for round 2.

wayne said...

Camoron's bail has been set, finally! It's only $50,000! That, of course, is for the felony custodial weapons charge, and shows up as the next court date (Feb. 8). Once the fifty large is posted, there's still "NO BAIL" for this murder matter, and the next court date is 3/28/2008.

I am really not sure if Geragos is still defending the POS, or if he was just contacted for a comment about the situation. We could also ask Ted for some details, and reliably believe the exact opposite of anything he claims.

WMD

ken said...

This explains why Teddi has suddenly run silent. He knows it's over, and Cam is Bubba's bitch.

On the positive side, no one has heard from Teddi for a while. :)

ken said...

Guys, we blew an anniversary ... or is it a milestone?

As of January 27, 2008, Cam Brown has spent more time behind bars than Lauren lived on this planet.

Compuelf said...

So Cameron was holding a home made weapon. What realistic danger can he face in segregation? It's not like he's in the yard with the general population.

Maybe he's bought into Teddie's "They're out to kill Cameron" conspiracy.

ken said...

I think even Ted's given up -- no one has posted in nearly two months apart from me.

You can let 'em fly, if you see fit.

Compuelf said...

I wonder if Ted is even bothering to read the site any more.

wayne said...

The Fat Boy's suffering from a huge case of cognitive dissonance, no doubt. But the silence is golden.

I don't put much interest in "more days in jail than his victim spent alive," because it's an extreme case of comparing apples and oranges, and somehow, in a morbid sense, almost leads to the conclusion that the younger the victim, the quicker that point in the jail sentence is reached, which seems counter-intuitive to me.

What are the chances of this situation happening: Years from now, as his speedy trial is continually postponed two months at a time via waiving his right, Camoron cuts a deal for manslaughter, with a sentence of "time served" - and the time served turns out to be longer than he might have gotten if it went to trial as soon as possible? I guess we'll never know...

wayne said...

Camoron pleaded not guilty to the shank charge yesterday, and apparently his next court date is March 4 for a preliminary hearing date is to be set.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8213898

WMD

Ken said...

I don't place any special significance upon the length of Camster's stay at the Hotel California, either; I'm just pointing out the irony.

The next so-called anniversary, to be celebrated some time this summer, is when the Camster will have spent a full tenth of his life in his cage. And he's not even convicted yet.

As for me, I think it deplorable that he has had to wait as long as he has for his day in court, and this is as much the fault of the State as it is that of Cam and his attorneys. As a society, we should insist upon better.

I'm willing to give Cam the benefit of the doubt on the shank charge, unless they clearly found it on his person. I don't trust our public officials any further than I can throw them. How many people have been the victim of drugs planted in their cars? Way too many.

I'm thinking they'll eventually cut a deal, and it wouldn't surprise me if they planted the shank to put a little pressure on him to settle. It's a terrible thing for a judge whenever a case goes to trial; it screws up his golf game royally. :)

I would be surprised if we hear from Ted again, unless something positive for Cam suddenly comes up out of nowhere.

ken said...

He's BAAAAACK, folks!

Ted: "How could a knife possibly be of any advantage to him?"

You can't seem to ride the same horse twice; you keep breaking the poor thing's back. First, you said that it wasn't safe for him, even in protected custody. Now, you say that he doesn't need a shiv? It's the consistent inconsistencies in your position which have made this saga so confusing. Let your "yes" mean yes and your "no" mean no, and we'll all get along fine.

Sounds to me as if there is some good news in all of this. Planting contraband on a suspect is a standard play in the cop's playbook -- kind of like what the Bar tried to pull with me. ("Psychiatry" is almost as much of a science as shamanism, and I could have manufactured evidence on Pope John Paul II if I had had the resources.) Fortunately, Cam appeared to draw an honest judge; if I were sitting on that bench, my eyes would have rolled, too. If there was a Ted Kaldis on that bench (think back at how you've pre-judged others, and be honest), things might not have gone quite as well.

As I see it, it looks to me like this is about forcing Cam to cut a deal. They've sent a message: "You can get out now with a manslaughter conviction and time served, or risk being convicted on Murder Two (which is a 50-50 proposition)." They pretty much know what you have in your hand, and can do the math. If a deal has been offered along that line, that would only confirm my suspicions. They'll take it to trial if they have to -- DAs don't have to bluff -- but they'd just as soon save a little money if they can.

If you haven't figured out just how dirty our court system is -- which is why my approach was the only one available in my case (you can't let them fabricate evidence, because they will), and why your suggestions were so patently ludicrous -- you just haven't been paying attention.

Ken said...

Ted: They seem to have been quite perceptive, after all.

Ken [in 'Ted mode']: Danny Smith, Judge Arnold, Craig Hum, and Dr. Hayes? They know Cam is guilty, and everyone else seems to know that Cam is guilty (remember that it's not Ken Smith, but John and Ken, who have been the heroes leading the lynch mob); even if they might not be able to prove it conclusively, they sure figured out a good way to make him pay. By the time the trial rolls around this summer, the Camster will have spent a tithe of his life in his cage. And he will come out a changed man (assuming that he ever gets his shiv back). Guess it's just your god's way of punishing those who truly deserve it, right, Ted?

Schadenfreude. It's a beautiful feeling. :)

Ted: (I also have no problem with the Colorado Bar Examiners, BTW.)

Ken (quoting Ted): Of course not. It wasn't you that they lied about. [/Ted] Funny how that works, isn't it, Teddums?

Ted accuses: And your only concern seems to be exclusively about Ken Smith.

Take a look in the mirror, if there are any left in your house. This sudden interest in due process and the flaws in our judicial system are all about your sister. If it were Cam Jones, you wouldn't give a flyin' f*** (what your Jesus doesn't know won't hurt him, right?). Cops walk on water ... except in L.A. Judges are honest ... except in L.A. Expert witnesses would never lie ... except when they testify about your precious Camster. You don't see the big picture, and don't have the intellectual firepower to even glimpse it.

My interest is in restoration of the rule of law, and I'd even champion the cause of the unlovely (Cam certainly seems to fit there) if there was a cause worth championing. Most of your gripes about Cam's case, however, are a product of your infinite ignorance and/or incurable stupidity.

Cam might have qualities worth saving; as for you, you are too unlovely for even me to defend. And no, I'm not talking about your Pierce Brosnan-esque looks. :)

wayne said...

Pierce Brosnan-esque? More like Ernest Borgnine-esque, after Ernest stayed up the whole night drinking.

WMD

ken said...

Uh, is the sarcasm too subtle, Wayne?

wayne said...

No, of course not. I just take any opportunity I can to compare Ted to Ernest Borgnine on a three-day bender. That photo of him in the Australian t-shirt is just too funny.

So Cam's spent four-plus years in the hoosegow, waiving his speedy trial rights two months at a time while his crack legal team does nothing more than display the scientific principle of "inertia at rest." When is the break-even point reached? I mean, at what point can we say that Cammy's time spent in jail awaiting trial would have most likely been equal to a possible plea bargain sentence if he had originally copped to a charge of, say, manslaughter, and somehow got out on good behavior? I'm thinking it's coming up within the next year or two. And, of course, hindsight is 20/20, so early release for good behavior might be a stretch of the imagination considering the boy's proclivity for crude weaponry.

wayne said...

Ted's return to his vanity blob - er, blog - contained a comment "[BTW, I have never "prejudged" others.]" That's demonstrably wrong, since he's commented several times on what he seems to think are my drinking habits, based only on the fact that I'm a regional and national leader in a social fraternity, Phi Kappa Sigma. It's easy to see, of course, that he's just flailing in retaliation against those who've used his "electric beer" words against him, but to claim that he's never prejudged others is just plain stupid.

CountryGirl said...

I hope Hum doesn't offer the POS a plea bargain. As far as I am concerned, he can do life w/o parole 2 months at a time. His choice.

Ken said...

Teddi and the Sockpuppets have gone silent again. Amazing how all those good folk respond at the same time....

Ronni said...

I've lost my link to the sock-puppet place. Could somebody please send it? Or leave it as a comment at http://ronnisrants.blogspot.com

Thanks.

Compuelf said...

If you mean the Kaldis k00k blog, it's http://www.cameronbrowncase.blogspot.com/

Ken said...

Actually, it's http://cameronbrowncase.blogspot.com.

Wayne Delia said...

Wake up! Everybody wake up!

Today, Good Friday, Camoron had a scheduled appointment in Case BA33536001 at 8:00AM. That's the "shiv" incident. The LASD Information web site hasn't been updated yet. Then, after Ted's Lord and Savior Jesus Christ resurrects Himself on Sunday in redemption of all Camoron's sins, it's back to court for Camoron in case BA25520601, where another 60-day continuance is expected after Cammie waives his "speedy trial" right.

This is riveting, folks! Come on... riveting!

Well, maybe not so much then.

Ken said...

They finally stopped waiving Cam's speedy trial rights.

Seems that Judge Arnold was going on vacation, and he had a capital murder trial after that.

They wanted out of Arnold's court so badly that they had Cam sit in the can for two years!

Ken said...

From da udder blog. This one won't last long:

TED'S TUZLA MOMENT!

Ken: "Ted had every opportunity to check the claim out. It took me less than two minutes to debunk it,"

Ted: "First of all, let's get things straight. The claim came from a member of the Los Angeles legal community and not from me. And I understood it to mean that Hum had future political aspirations, and not immediate ones. And in this context the claim still has just as much credibility as it did on the day I heard it. So you have "debunked" nothing, but have rather, as usual, mendaciously prevaricated. And you continue to thunder your mendacious prevarications as if you have actually accomplished something when your failures are spectacular, and are openly conspicuous for all to see.

BTW, if I had thought that Hum were thinking of running for office at the next election, I would have been able to debunk the claim just as easily as you [supposedly] did. And you would never even have heard about it. Hum, unlike you, thinks ahead -- and, most certainly unlike you, thoroughly understands human nature. Like I said, you have debunked nothing! You mendacious prevaricator.


Here's the actual exchange (which may or may not be on Google; at the recommendation of one of our mutual friends in Aus, I've kept a dossier on you, and have a lot of your "greatest hits"), from Feb. 17, 2004 (Ted in italics):

With regard to the prosecutor bringing the case, the consensus among the Los Angeles legal community seems to be that ethics are not his strong suit (to put it mildly).

I haven't seen any evidence of this. I know Ted Kaldis' lack of morals and ethics at first hand, though....

We are told that this particular prosecutor was a member of an elite prosecutorial unit, the Major Crimes task force, and that for one reason or another, he was taken off this team.

Based on what I'm seeing from Google, he's getting his fair share of the top-drawer cases.

We are told, and it seems reasonable to assume, that he wasn't happy with this turn of events. He was assigned to the Torrance Court House, as just another A.D.A., trying cases.

We are told that he is an ambitious man, and that he hopes to replace the man who presumably removed him from the task force. But this is what we find so disturbing, if it is true. We are told that he set about looking for a case that he could use to build a reputation on, and that the case which he found was that of Cameron Brown. So he found (we are told) an "expert" witness, who, for a fee, would say what was needed to be said in order to be able to get an arrest warrant.

And (the story goes) he had Cameron arrested and then conducted his press conference, so that his name and face get splashed all over the L.A. media,


I hate to tell you this, Ted, but this IS a high-profile murder case. It belongs in the same league as Chandra, Laci, Nicole, and Jon Benet. It's not like the ADAs get to pick and choose their cases, is it? The DA should be assigning them, if it isn't done at random.

where he portrays himself as the hero prosecutor who removed a vicious baby- killer off the streets. And as a fringe benefit (it is said), the press conference serves to create an atmosphere where no [elected] judge is going to risk dismissing the case at the preliminary hearing, regardless of how thin the evidence really is.

And now, we can't trust our elected judges?!? LOL!

As for the actual trial itself, who cares? The election for D.A. is in November, and the trial won't be heard until some time after that. And (it is said) he hopes to be the next L.A. D.A. by then.

Just one fatal problem with that theory, Ted: Hum's not even listed as a candidate (http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/la/county.html) in SmartVoter. I couldn't find his campaign website. As near as I can tell, there is exactly zero evidence to support your claim that he has immediate political ambitions, and according to the website, the county D.A. election is only a month away.

In fact, a quick search shows that Hum *dropped* a murder case against a gang-banger because he didn't have the evidence to proceed. You would think that, if he had no immediate political ambitions, and he's willing to drop unmeritorious cases, that he'd drop the case against Cam if he didn't think he had enough evidence to proceed.

Ted, you've accused everyone involved in this case *except* Cam Brown with wrongdoing. And everyone who questions your findings is a "b*tch," "low-life," a "scumbag," and anything else you can think of to degrade them. Please tell me that you have something more than an autograph of Mike Ditka to hang your hat on....

Is that sniper fire I hear? "RUN TO YOUR CAR! KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN!!! I'm just going to sit down on this imaginary rock here.... :)

ken said...

From da KOOOOOOOOOOK blog:

TED'S TUZLA MOMENT: CI's "NO-SPINE" ZONE

CI: "Again, Ken, I think you are deliberately distorting Ted's comments with regard to Hum. Ted was reporting something that was told to him as a POSSIBLE reason why Hum was pulling at straws to get make a case against Cam. His arrest, and ESPECIALLY in view of the motive created by the prosecutor, was so far-fetched to those who knew Cam that they were seeking some rationale for what was being done. That was only ONE of the potential reasons that were explored. There are others."

What happened to you, CI? Are you suddenly channeling Tony Snow-Job? Did you just become Hillary's press secretary? Did "Baghdad Bob" hack your account?

TED LIED. Not four years ago, but less than four days ago. It was a Tuzla Special. (Granted, to USENET regulars, this is about as newsworthy and unusual as a bear crapping in the woods, as everyone there knows that Ted Kaldis is a certifiable sociopath, and pretty much anything he says is regarded with outright scorn.)

Ted called me out as a "mendacious prevaricator" (you'd think he'd finally find a new phrase after all these years! :) ) for pointing out that he had asserted that Craig Hum was prosecuting Cam for short-term political gain. But of course, Theodore Rodham Clinton was caught out, and like Hilliary, he should have known better. Doesn't matter what the source was -- I have more than one source insinuating that Judge Nottingham is a manic-depressive who fails not infrequently to take his meds, but I don't go around alleging it as established fact because I can't confirm it to journalistic standards -- what matters is what Ted said then, in counterpoise to what he says now. TED LIED. What part of that do you not understand?

Ted can speculate all he wants. But he shouldn't call me out as a liar when he knows damn well that I am telling the truth -- and can prove it.

You might be able to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate your impressions and speculation, but you can't change what Ted said. TED LIED.

Repeat after me, until it sinks in: "Ted is a LIAR. Ted is a LIAR. Ted is a LIAR. Ted is a LIAR. Ted is a LIAR. Ted is a LIAR. Ted is a LIAR. Ted is a LIAR...."

Ken said...

From da udder blog -- I love this analogy.

Case Insider: How can a transcript from January refer to an event months later?

Ted: Magic.

CI: And, where is the initial transcript from immediately following Lauren's autopsy?

Ted: Deep-sixed, for all we know.


It's a word processing file, for chrissakes! There is nothing inherently sinister about an edit. Everybody forgets to change the date from time to time, and government employees are more sloppy than most.

There is a reason why autopsy reports are not evidence. Except for the physical autopsy itself, they are routinely written (and rewritten and rewritten) after the fact.

The 9/11 Litmus Test
We know that on 11/9/00, the coroner's office was already investigating this as a homicide. We are told by the radiology consultant that "circumstances are suspicious." (Of course, no one on Team Cam will even admit this!) It's not like they woke up one morning in May and said, "Let's frame a man for murder!"

A "class-A" autopsy is supposed to be performed in these circumstances. While the standard procedure is to examine every part of the body, is the coroner at liberty to deviate from that standard in the exercise of his sound judgment? If the answer is yes, then there probably isn't anything to what we see: after all, if you find a girl who fell off a cliff with her head cracked open like a hard-boiled egg, it isn't tough to figure out the cause of death.

Think of it this way. After 9/11, instead of preserving the evidence (as every police protocol ever in existence has mandated), Rudy Guiliani had the girders from the Twin Towers (and Building 7) destroyed. In fact, not a single girder from Building 7 was preserved. Not one!!! Building 7 was a singularity: the only modern skyscraper in history to have collapsed due to fire only -- if we are to believe our government (a government which has organized a number of false flag operations -- e.g., the sinking of the Maine; the Gulf of Tonkin incident -- to start wars before). Do you have a problem with that, and if not, why not?

When a jetliner crashes, the FAA and NTSB perform a painstaking autopsy. A Class-A autopsy should have been performed on Building 7 as well, if for no other reason than to figure out just what in the hell went wrong (and to rule out complicity by other parties).

Is there reasonable doubt as to the cause of 9/11? More specifically, can reasonable suspicion that the Bush Administration had knowledge and/or was even actively involved in 9/11 be inferred from their deviation from standard autopsy procedures?

Cui bono? Who benefits?

The same argument applies here. At least, the Bush Administration had an obvious motive (Iraq, oil, Israel, and control of the government); Dr. Chinwah does not. If you are not 9/11 Truthers, why should we be Cam Brown Truthers?

CountryGirl said...

I see CB is still doing life in the men's central jail downtown. Works for me.

Ken said...

This one won't last long at da udder blog....


Tuzla Ted is at it again!

----------------
From: "Theodore A. Kaldis"
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:22:34 GMT
Local: Wed, Apr 9 2008 9:22 am
Subject: Ken Smith STILL AT IT, Sues 10th Circuit Court of Appeals!
[In case there's any doubt, he lost this one, too.]

For those not familiar with the background, in 1998, after graduating from law school, Ken Smith applied to become a lawyer in Colorado. He had passed the bar exam, but ran afoul of the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.

Specifically, on the basis of some legal actions that Ken had initiated when he was still a law student (and also ostensibly because of a perceived lack of candor by Ken), the Bar Examiners asked Ken to submit to a psychological examination. Ken refused, and was consequently DENIED a licence to practise law in Colorado. See:
-------------------

Can't you just smell the hypocrisy?

-------------------
Former American Airlines baggage-handler Cameron John Brown stands accused of murdering his illegitimate four-year-old daughter by throwing her off a Rancho Palos Verdes, CA cliff. At last count, he has spent a tenth of his entire life -- roughly four-and-a-half years -- in jail, as he awaits a retrial on the charges in June.

Tuzla Ted Kaldis, the brother-in-law of this certifiable low-life, has been whining uncontrollably about the alleged injustices of our mean old court system. While freely acknowledging that, under our bad, bad, bad, bad, bad court system, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich and a judge can do pretty much anything he wants, Tuzla Ted is having a temper tantrum over the fact that Los Angeles ADA Craig hum indicted *HIS* Cam Sandwich ... and Judge Mark Arnold did pretty much anything he wanted at the trial.

The Camster has been in his cage for nearly two extra years after he lost his bid for acquittal (the jury hung 10-2 for second-degree murder, with the holdouts wanting manslaughter), because he didn't like the mean old judge (who was actually quite fair!), and didn't want to go back to his courtroom. Consider the unspeakable crime that this mean old judge committed:
---------------------

Team Cam has never cared about justice. Not one damn bit! All you care about is yourselves. All you have ever cared about is yourselves.

---------------------
Rather than petition for a change of venue due to adverse pre-trial publicity (which they would have gotten), Team Cam chose to let him rot in his cage for another two years, just waiting for the mean old judge's trial calendar to get booked up. Rather than take their chances in the sticks of Fresno with a jury of Tednecks who would have hung Cam without a trial, they wanted the illiterate masses of Lost Angeles to hear this case. They wanted to go downtown.

While Ted loathes liberal, cop-hating Democrats, they needed a liberal cop-hating Democrat to hear the case if the Camster had any slim hope of being acquitted. However, in the ultimate of ironies, Ted got the only openly-gay Democratic judge in the entire Los Angeles' court system. In a jurisdiction that couldn't convict O.J., Robert Blake, or even Phil Spector, and a bus-load of nuns is generally required to provide enough testimony to warrant conviction, it would seem as though Cam should have walked a long time ago. But they had to wait two years to draw the right judge, because (by the attorneys' own tacit admission, inferred from the tactics) Cam's case is so weak.

Cam's case was so weak, even his investment-banker daddy wouldn't put up the money for his defense. Dad knows a dud when he sees it.

Think about it, kiddies: "Tuzla Ted" is whining because they locked up his precious Cam, despite the fact that he could have revoked his speedy trial waiver at any time. They could have gotten through seven or eight trials by now, but the Camster obviously likes his cage.

When you have Ted and Patty to go home to, Bubba starts looking better and better....
--------------------

Don't ever accuse me of hypocrisy, CI. With that oleaginous piece of human filth by your side, you don't have the standing.

Anonymous said...

Those of you looking for Robert Brown, Camerons father he and his wife and other son live in Branson West, MO at 427 Austin Place 65737
417-338-0202