Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Second Trial: Hung Jury #2

The second trial of The People of California v. Cameron John Brown ended with another hung jury that reportedly voted 6-6 for second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. It remains to be seen whether Craig Hum will try the case a third (and final) time or if the People will offer Brown a plea - a common action taken at this stage. If Brown refuses to plead to involuntary manslaughter (a felony where his six years in L.A. County jail would be considered time served), he will likely be released on bail and retried for the higher of the two charges.

See HERE for last Daily Breeze report.

Details from the jury deliberations and notes from the courtroom are yet to be posted at Denise Nix's blog or elsewhere. It would be interesting if someone got an interview with the jury foreman.

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

PARENTS ON TRIAL ~ Editorial

Much of the discussion surrounding the Brown case had to do with Brown's intent - did he plan or hope for Lauren to fall off the cliff or was he simply reckless? Was it really Brown's parenting skills on trial? Would any of us survive the merciless scrutiny under which Brown's fathering was measured? Perhaps not, but while no parent is perfect, Brown showed a pattern of disregard for Lauren's safety throughout their short time together and both he and his wife acted with spite and cruelty toward Lauren's mother without considering the effect of that behavior on a small child.

Yet, being a spiteful non-custodial father or a jealous new wife isn't a crime; otherwise, our jails would not be full of small-time drug dealers, but middle-class working parents that swear at each other in court, threatent violence, file false abuse charges against their exes, publish blogs and "tweets" and Facebook entries defaming their children's mother (or father), and behave in the most incivilized and harmful manner.

Clearly, domestic issues bring out the very worst in some otherwise good people. If nothing else positive comes of this case, maybe it can bring attention to the damage that can be done to children by this kind of behavior. A beautiful little girl died as a direct result of the adversarial relationship between her biological parents. Some of us believe it was murder, some are convinced it was a "terrible accident"; either way, she is gone because of choices that were made outside her control, because people she depended on to guard her safety (in this case, her father), failed to protect her, and in his willing disregard for her and her mother, caused this tragedy.

We have yet to hear any remorse expressed by Brown or his supporters for their responsibility.

105 Comments:

At 10/7/09, 2:21 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Thanks, Loretta, for the link to that Daily Breeze report. I didn't know that 2nd Degree Murder in this situation could mean either intentional act with malice, or without. That would seem to cover a lot of possibilities. Maybe it should always have been just Murder in 1st or 2nd degree, no Manslaughter. First time for me, seeing a picture of Sarah. God, what that poor woman has suffered from this one individual.

 
At 10/8/09, 9:15 AM , Blogger Melissa said...

If this WAS an accident. How is it a direct result of their adversarial relationship?

And how are his supporters responsible for it?

 
At 10/9/09, 12:27 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

All available evidence indicates it was not an accident. If it were nothing more than the tragic accident Team Cam presents, Cameron would have been acquitted.

Two separate juries have concluded Cameron is guilty of a crime regarding Lauren's death. They simply couldn't reach a unanimous decision as to what the crime was.

Part of Cameron's motivation would be his intense hate for Sarah. It's not the main motivation, of course. However, Cameron likely thought, and may think, that because she got pregnant, she was responsible for his having to pay nearly $1000.00 a month for a child he never wanted.

I don't know how those who support Cameron could be seen to be responsible.

They have tried to spin everything to make it appear as if Cameron is innocent, which certainly makes them look bad, but being scum and being responsible for Lauren's death are two different things.

 
At 10/9/09, 12:32 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Loretta,

Thank you for the link to the Breeze article. I've been curious as to just what Sarah looks like, but always thought it would be in poor taste (putting it mildly) to ask for a photo.

That Cam went from her to Patty is very telling.

Further, the information regarding the difference between first and second degree murder is informative.

 
At 10/9/09, 6:59 AM , Blogger Melissa said...

What does Patty look like? I havent seen a picture of her. You all make her out to be a wiping the snot off her nose with her sleeve behemoth. But nobody on this site seems to have attended either of the trials.

 
At 10/9/09, 7:13 AM , Blogger Melissa said...

Compuelf - involuntary manslaughter is generally an accident. Caused by criminal negligence or shall we say ignorance? I believe after all I have read that he is most guilty of that. I can SEE where people think he is guilty of more. I just cannot see it beyond a reasonable doubt. I cannot fathom putting a man behind bars for the rest of his life, let alone KILL him for being a shithead.

 
At 10/9/09, 9:00 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Melissa, you get one shot at life. Thanks to Cameron Brown, a little girl's shot at it ended after a mere four years on Earth. If that is how you define a shithead (to me he is far, far worse than that), some kinds of shitheads should certainly spend life behind bars. He either murdered her or makes such poor decisions that he should not be allowed personal liberty again. I am not sure how you can't see it with sheer common sense and I am guessing you are young and or do not have children. No parent in his or her RIGHT mind could do what he did; no way.

 
At 10/9/09, 4:31 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Melissa, we're working on three separate descriptions of her by independent attendees. CG saw her when she attended.

Based on the genetics and the descriptions, put a shoulder-length dishwater-grey wig on that (see http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg) and you get a decent first approximation.

That Team Cam never put a photo of her on "his" blog speaks volumes.

 
At 10/9/09, 6:30 PM , Blogger Melissa said...

No it doesnt. That is ridiculous.

However I am still stinging over the obvious lashing that I got from Anonymous. How I must be so young, I am 40. How I cant know what it feels like to lose a baby I have lost 3. In fact while I am replying to you my face is getting hot, and wanting be to beligerent. i dont see the point though. I think that anonymous is most likely younger than I and has had less life experience.

And if anonymous really thinks that is the way that the justtice system works is scares me that others feel this way.

In MY case, my babies died because my uteris cannot expand that way. By game three I am tied. Did I murder my second 2? Knowing my uteris had no elasticity?

I KNOW you think this case is kinda bunk. I have seen your posts on the other side.

As for anonymous, she can rot in hell for all I care. SHE apparently has had no dead babies. And I hate mothers who say "unless you have been a mother you will never understand", I would like to give tham a nose punch. I would do a month in jail for it in fact.

 
At 10/9/09, 6:33 PM , Blogger Melissa said...

BTW - Ken, I know you are a smartass, and I have that in me too.

But as the aunt of fraternal twins (2 eggs, not a split), I can tell you they can look completely different.

 
At 10/9/09, 6:35 PM , Blogger Melissa said...

Please excuse spelling errors. Beer and playoffs dont mix with typing lol

 
At 10/10/09, 1:47 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Actually Ken, Patty wasn't there the day I went. I saw Ted. Enough said.

I can't even put into words what I feel about this hung jury. Twelve more people who believe he is guilty yet can't agree on one verdict.

I seriously can't understand why Pastor let them go so soon.

 
At 10/10/09, 12:01 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it is time for "professional" juries? People pulled for jury duty for weeks or longer seem to develop complex problems that end up in results such as this. Twelve people agreeing on a verdict is actually expecting way too much of the average jury. You are always going to have the hold outs for whatever reason. Some finally give in just to get it over with and be able to go home. Perhaps a majority would be a more reasonable requirement - as if that would ever happen either.
I've always believed a sequestered jury is best because they have no outside influence(s) and are more or less forced to concentrate and get the job done.

 
At 10/10/09, 12:40 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Melissa: But as the aunt of fraternal twins (2 eggs, not a split), I can tell you they can look completely different.

There is a reason why the Jewish bloodlines followed the mother. As a general rule, children of the same parents look similar, and at a very young age, they generally resemble their fathers. I suspect an evolutionary benefit there, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about it.

It is entirely possible that Ted and Patty had different fathers, and if so, one would expect them to look a lot different. That having been said, if you rely on the law of averages, you can say that it is far more likely than not that Patty resembles Ted.

As for a photo of Patty not being on Cam's "personal blog," how weird is that?

 
At 10/10/09, 2:02 PM , Blogger Melissa said...

It is VERY uncommon for twins to have different fathers, however, fraternal twins dont always look alike.

My niece and nephew have similar coloring. Blonde hair and blue eyes, however they are as different in every other way. Including personalities. One is tall and lanky like his dad, and the other is short and kinda chunky like her mom.

As for brothers and sisters looking alike as a general rule I disagree. From experience alone. I know many sibs who do not look alike. Mine included. Sure, I look like one brother, there is no mistaking it. On the other hand I have a blonde haired blue eyed brother who looks nothing like us.

On the OTHER OTHER hand, I look like my sister who I am not blood related to. So your making fun of Patty is de-bunk and immature. And seriously? Has nothing to do with this case.

I dont think it weird in any way that Patty isnt featured on the blog. Cam himself has no Internet access so obviously it isnt his "personal" blog.

 
At 10/29/09, 2:48 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Denise Nix reports:

A judge postponed a hearing this morning for motions in the wake of the second mistrial in the Cameron Brown Rancho Palos Verdes cliff death case.

Brown's defense attorneys were expected to ask Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor to reduce Brown's bail and the charges.

However, the written motions were not filed in time and the hearing was rescheduled for Dec. 17.

Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum said he anticipates re-trying the case some time next year.

 
At 10/30/09, 6:31 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Did Geragos screw up another deadline? Irrespective of his merits as an advocate, he is FAMOUS for this.

I don't care how you slice it: This is just staggeringly inexcusable. If Geragos didn't file in time, it is all on him. If Hum didn't file on time, he had every right to oppose an extension, as his client's liberty was in direct jeopardy. And as Judge Pastor was calling a fair game, he had every reason to believe that the Court would not countenance a delay.

The kiddies tell us that Geragos is taking the center seat on the next one; Loretta will just have to get "interested" again. ;-)

 
At 10/30/09, 6:37 AM , Blogger loretta said...

That GerEgo and his intrepid sidekick Pat Harris once again blew a deadline (they are famous for this, and it's rather pathetic) does not surprise me. What will surprise me is if Geragos even bothers to touch this "dog" for the third trial.

I think they should take a plea. But hey, I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on the Internets.

Smartest thing to do - take a plea, get out of jail. Go home to the lovely wife and brudder-in-law. If GerEgo & Friends forces a third trial, and Ted and Patty continue to give the prosecutors all they need to perfect their case (THREE bites of the apple?!), Cam won't be out of prison til he's 70. Just in time for Medicare.

 
At 10/30/09, 6:37 AM , Blogger loretta said...

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_13668039

 
At 10/30/09, 11:50 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Yes, I found it hard to believe they missed the deadline for motions.

I would think they already had this motion to dismiss, reduce charges, allow bail, etc in the files and just needed to change a few things and send it in.

And since the State of California is footing the bill, money shouldn't be an issue.

 
At 10/30/09, 12:33 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Notice how "anony" on Udder Blog states this: "Mark asked for a continuence [sic] because he had not completed his writ, but there were no missed deadlines." I just love that clever distinction, don't you? Dog ate my homework! Just "Mark" being "Mark", evidently!

 
At 11/9/09, 12:12 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

I lit a candle for Lauren tonight.

 
At 12/9/09, 5:53 PM , Anonymous Sheriff John Bunnell said...

He'll think twice about this mess...

IN JAIL!!

 
At 12/12/09, 3:00 PM , Anonymous ken said...

More weird spin from the Udder Blog:

Ken: It seems there was more to the case involving Brandon Manai: He reportedly confessed to a friend.

Ted: Bollocks. The "friend" is in reality a jailhouse snitch.

From the Breeze: A friend of Brandon Manai told a jury Monday that he clearly remembered his friend confessing to throwing his wife off a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff, even though he woke up with a hangover that day.

Anselmo Sojo recounted how Manai sat across from him at a restaurant on the Redondo Beach pier that afforded a view of the cliffs jetting into the ocean to the south.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_13896692

I did a quick search for "Anselmo Sojo" on the LASD website. No records matched. And the detail doesn't match your claims. Sorry, Ted, but at first glance, this looks like another "Craig Hum is running for office" moment.

 
At 12/17/09, 3:11 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a defense team, huh?

From Denise Nix - Daily Breeze:

"No Cameron Brown hearing tomorrow
By Denise Nix on December 16, 2009

Cameron Brown was scheduled for a pretrial hearing tomorrow, during which it was expected that his attorneys would file motions to have the charges reduced or dismissed, and to have Brown released from jail. I'm told that, because those motions have not yet been filed, the proceeding is likely going to be postponed to another day. I'll keep you posted."

It looks like Cam is not going anywhere for Xmas! Good.

Anne (Brazil)

 
At 12/17/09, 6:56 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Two thoughts cross my mind. Either there is talk of a plea bargain going on, or there's an issue of $$.

I don't believe it is because the motions weren't ready to file.

Thoughts?

 
At 12/18/09, 4:49 AM , Blogger AmyJo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12/18/09, 4:54 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Sorry - posted without signing in, so I removed the anonymous. I've missed out on a bunch, both here & at the udder blog, it's been a rough couple of months.

I absolutely believe it's because the motions weren't ready to file. Even though they're boilerplate and would've taken no time at all to prepare. There's absolutely ZERO reason not to file them, even IF there were pleas being considered in the background. You mount your defense on all fronts at once, not piecemeal.

Well, at least GOOD attorneys do.

 
At 12/18/09, 7:41 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Hope things are better Jobeth.

Yes, motions are boiler-plate. So why let your client sit in jail?

 
At 12/18/09, 7:49 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

New date in Cameron Brown case
By Denise Nix on December 17, 2009 10:11 AM

Just got word that the next installment in the Cameron Brown case will be Jan. 28.

Oh, and...

No Cameron Brown hearing tomorrow

By Denise Nix on December 16, 2009 4:20 PM |

Cameron Brown was scheduled for a pretrial hearing tomorrow, during which it was expected that his attorneys would file motions to have the charges reduced or dismissed, and to have Brown released from jail. I'm told that, because those motions have not yet been filed, the proceeding is likely going to be postponed to another day. I'll keep you posted.

http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/2009/12/no-cameron-brown-hearing-tomor.html

Link above for those ===> that think misinformation was posted here.

 
At 12/18/09, 11:19 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Thanks, CG - was in a bad car accident, a woman who wasn't paying attention to the fact that traffic had stopped (because she was on her cell phone) hit the back of my car doing about 30 mph. Never even tried to stop. Totaled my car, probably totaled hers as well (and hers was a 2009 Mercedes E350).

Who knew that VA couldn't get a law passed to mandate hands-free cell phone use? Not that it may have made a difference, but it sure couldn't have hurt.

I'm in physical therapy for back & neck issues and making progress, hubby may need surgery for a torn labrum and rotator cuff. Fun fun.

 
At 12/21/09, 5:45 AM , Anonymous ken said...

As this may get excised at the udder blog...

kad: First off, Ken by his own admission failed the psych exam for the Colorado bar exam.

By that metric, you are Ted Kaldis' gay lover -- by your own admission. Easy to make charges up, harder to prove them, Wal-Mart Greeter-Guy. Good luck in passing the Baby Bar; you will definitely need it. Evidence, logic, reason, and proof are undiscovered countries to you, and the law school curriculum will not come naturally for you.

kad: Again, all I was doing was presenting a point of view that happened to differ from yours.

You have a God-given right to not just be ignorant but stupid, and you are clearly exercising it.

kad: However the fact he was late on one motion, public defenders are late on motions yet I hear no bitching from you about it?

Thank you for admitting that Geragos was late in filing his motion in Cam's case, and that if he is entitled to bail (it is my view that he probably should get it), that Geragos' sloth is the proximate cause of his not spending yet another Christmas at home with his family. PDs are burdened with a crushing workload and no resources to speak of; Geragos undoubtedlly bills out at a minimum of $700 an hour, and can afford to hire another paralegal to file what ought to be a boiler-plate motion.

kad: Also Ken, you exposed yourself as a hater. Taking cheap shots at me all because I think Geragos is a good lawyer.

I don't suffer fools gladly, and you are a spectacular specimen. My estimation of Geragos has fallen precipitously on account of how he has managed this case because I know better; you are not merely ignorant but evidently, incapable of being instructed.

kad: You are right Ken, I may very well never become anything. But it will not be because I did not try.

Based on what I have seen here, you are limited by your lack of innate intellectual ability. You validate the Proverbs in spades.

kad: I love how you rip on me, a person who has not even taken the bar exam yet, yet yourself flunked in Colorado because you were deemed psychologically unstable.

Political corruption happens. If you ever grow up and get your head out of the place where you need to have a light on just to see polyps, you will eventually learn that our courts do not suffer whistle-blowers and/or reformers gladly. They see me as a threat and probably, not without cause.

kad: Also, pretty pathetic you ripped on a kid with down syndrome.

To compare you with a kid with Down's is an insult to the kid with Down's. Trig can't help but be behind the curve; you choose to be.

 
At 12/23/09, 6:20 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usual reasons apply

Ted: I see that you have recently returned from your annual trip to Australia. (I didn't want to say anything about where you were while you were gone, just in case convicted burglar Kent Wills might have been reading.)

Stalker Ted strikes again!

It's quite a place; you really should visit some time. How long has it been, now?

If you insist upon gloating over the injustice suffered by others, you really have no reason to whine when people laugh at the predicament that the Kook Kaldis Klan finds itself in. While I discern that you are far more inclined to have sex with your Bible than read it, there's something in there about reaping what you sow....

 
At 12/23/09, 6:24 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usuals:

Ted: Ken's actions here (and elsewhere) incline me to believe that the Bar Examiners' concerns about his psychological fitness were well-founded, BTW.

Then, I guess you have no particular reason to bitch so loudly about the indisputable fact that 99% of the population believes Cameron John Brown to be a cold-blooded BABY-KILLER, and that 99.9% of the population believes that the State has probable cause to incarcerate him pending a trial on the merits. Funny how your standards always blow up in your face, when applied consistently.

I'm to the point where I think the poor guy should at least be able to post bail, but I recognize that I am in the distinct minority here. Seven Christmases is just one too long, and it sucks the big one that Geragos dropped the ball yet again. Personally, I would have wanted that hearing to have been conducted on the week before Christmas, as the judge just might have found a heart.

 
At 12/23/09, 6:31 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Usuals:

Ken: I'm also allowed to post over there. The difference, of course, is that the Kook Kaldis Klan is not welcome there.

Ted: What, and that's something to brag about? Who then is it that allows the free and open exchange of ideas, and who is it that muzzles those who do not hold to the accepted party line? The reader is invited to come to his [or her] own conclusion.

Considering how often my posts are arbitrarily and hypocritically censored (which is why I cross-post so often), and the fact that Kent Wills is not allowed to post at all, you have no discernible grounds for self-righteousness. Loretta and CG censor for abusiveness, and the Kook Kaldis Klan insists upon being abusive. Here, the censorship is indisputably content-based.

 
At 12/23/09, 7:22 AM , Anonymous ken said...

The usuals:

Ken: As usual, you leave out all the key facts. I refused on the ground that [blah, blah, blah ...]

Ted: Too bad that Denver Federal District Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Colorado State District Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, or the United States Supreme Court didn't find sufficient merit in those arguments. Consequently, you are still NOT a lawyer.

This is the problem I have with you, Ted: To you, "justice" is comprised solely of the outcomes you like and "injustice," the outcomes you don't. Your "ethics" are strictly situational -- which is, by the way, indisputably Christian, as the short definition of a Christian is "insufferable hypocrite." The "why" and "how" never bothers you.

Morally speaking, you have no reason to whine if Craig Hum, Jeff Leslie, Mark Arnold, et al. have taken indecent liberties with the law and facts, because your moral mantra is "might makes right, and the ends justify the means." The wholesale evisceration of our Constitution honestly doesn't bother you, because you are so thoroughly "into yourself" that anything that doesn't happen to you or yours doesn't matter. Gerry Spence had something to say about Team Cam:

"In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong."

Spence was calling you guys out. You have no problem with even the grossest of injustices, as long as the wolf wasn't eating you. But when the wolf finally came to your door, how you have howled! "IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!! LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO MY POOR CAM! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!"

The system is broken. Badly. And yet, I am set upon for at least trying to do something about it. You're in the back of the boat (nearly capsizing it), while I'm out there trying to walk on water. And who is slinging arrows at me?

You don't have standing to whine. Hypocrites like you make me ill, Ted.

 
At 12/23/09, 7:58 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usuals:

While we're at it, Ted, here's some law that should make your Christmas:

[I]t is well-settled that “an indictment valid on its face is not subject to challenge on the ground that the grand jury acted on the basis of inadequate or incompetent evidence.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 345 (1974). Further, “An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.” United States v. Costello, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956); United States v. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141, 1182 (2d Cir. 1989) (“An indictment, if valid on its face, may not be challenged on the ground that it is based on inadequate evidence.”). ...

The “general issue” in a criminal trial, however, is “whether the defendant is guilty of the offense charged.” United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 125 (2d Cir. 1995). Thus, the courts generally hold it inappropriate to resolve by pre-trial motion questions of fact pertaining to guilt or innocense.[sic] See United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772, 776-77 (2d Cir. 1998 )(government not required to specify the exact nature of the effect on interstate commerce in Hobbs Act indictment); United States v. DeLaurentis, 230 F.3d 659, 660-61 (3d Cir. 2000) (unless stipulated record, pretrial motion to dismiss indictment for insufficient evidence is inappropriate); United States v. Massino, 605 F. Supp. 1565, 1581 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (“A motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence can be decided only at trial, after the government has been put to its test, not before trial, based merely on assumptions of what the government’s proof will be.”), rev’d in part on other grounds, 784 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Cafaro, 480 F. Supp. 511, 520 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (“It would be premature to dismiss an indictment based on a claim of insufficient evidence . . . An indictment, valid on its face and returned by a properly constituted grand jury, is sufficient to require trial of the charge on the merits.").


This is taken from a government brief in a federal bribery case against a judge, but it does show that if the State wants to take Cam to trial, they have every right to do so.

So, this is Christmas, and where is Cam?
Through the sloth of Geragos, he's still in the slam!

(sung to the tune of Happy X-Mas, by John Lennon)

 
At 12/24/09, 4:56 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usual rationale:

Ted: Here we see a GLARING example of why the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board had concerns about Ken Smith's moral and psychological fitness to practise law. Here Ken attempts to deceitfully and dishonestly suggest (by implication) that our objection to the indictment against Cameron Brown is somehow based on the belief that the indictment was arrived at on "inadequate" or "incompetent" evidence. But in fact, it is NOT! Our objection to the indictment is based on the FACT that it was arrived at through PERJURY -- and easily DEMONSTRABLE perjury at that.

The law is what it is, Ted. Shooting the messenger won't help.

From time immemorial, the cost of defending oneself against even false and malicious charges of criminal conduct has always been damnum absque injuria (a harm without a remedy). There was never any right to relief at common law, and no right to just compensation under modern international law. The traditional remedy for an act of perjury has always been an action in tort against the perjurer, and "the King can do no wrong."

This is, in my judgment, profoundly unjust. But it is the law as it now stands.

Your ignorance of the law would fill the Grand Canyon several times over. "Inadequate" evidence encompasses an indictment procured by perjured evidence, provided that it was material to the outcome of the proceeding. If the indictment would have been procured without it (as it would in all likelihood have been in Cameron's case), it is harmless error, at least as far as the indictment is concerned. But even if the perjured testimony was essential, what is left is "inadequate."

Words have meaning, Ted.

As for your "facts," I would be more inclined to rely on others' guesses. To sustain a charge of perjury, you not only have to prove that the witness was lying but also, that the witness knew that he was lying. Slipshod work does not qualify. Recollections being what they are (e.g., Det. Brothers' "disappearing rock"), there is a reason why the crime is so rarely prosecuted. Unless someone had a clear motive to lie, it is not an easy crime to prove.

Ted: Anyway, no one is really challenging the indictment at this point, so I don't know what point Ken is trying to make with this post. I can only surmise that it is a manifestation of Ken's hubris. In other words, Ken is apparently trying to impress us with how clever, or how brilliant, he [supposedly] really is. But we're not buying.

That specific passage refutes several of your claims concerning this case; if no one is challenging the indictment, then no one can challenge Cam's pre-trial incarceration. IIRC, this will be Cam's seventh Christmas in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California ("you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"), and at this point and in my judgment -- which you assess as fatally flawed because you are an obsessed religious nut-job and stalker with more emotional baggage than Paris Hilton's porter would consent to carry -- this has gotten to the point where continued pre-trial incarceration offends due process. Perhaps you believe that the sober (again, in your hate-filled assessment) judgment of Craig Hum ought to prevail....

Fair enough. Why don't you sing along with John Lennon?

"So, this is Christmas,
And where is Cam?
Through the sloth of Geragos,
he's still in the slam!

And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong."


Our system needs fixing, and there is so much left to do....

 
At 12/24/09, 1:21 PM , Anonymous ken said...

sockpuppet wars:

kad: This guy is just so off his rocker he needs to be kicked out of here.

Why? Because I disagree with you, and have forgotten more law than in all likelihood, you will ever learn?

kad: He is being vile to other posters, ripping on kids with down syndrome

I wasn't aware that you were suffering from it, kad. Your rants make a lot more sense if we start from the presumption that you are so afflicted.

Ted bans me selectively and periodically and always, after I score a particularly telling point. You appear to be his latest deus ex machina. Problem is, he would then be hoist on his own petard:

Ted: Who then is it that allows the free and open exchange of ideas, and who is it that muzzles those who do not hold to the accepted party line? The reader is invited to come to his [or her] own conclusion.

 
At 12/26/09, 9:52 AM , Anonymous ken said...

I'm beginning to think kadrmas is a Kaldis sockpuppet:

kid: Wow Ken, condescending and immature as always.

Condescending? Perhaps. You have demonstrated that you are an abject fool and blithering idiot, who deserves no better. If I was to show any respect for you, it would purely be out of mercy at this point.

kid: Interesting though how you denied almost none of the allegations I made.

I responded on the basis of materiality, as opposed to seriatim. By the same token, you have evaded virtually all of my arguments, as well. Physician, heal thyself.

kid: I do find it interesting though how you and others in your ilk love to use the rationale of 'oh you cannot come up with a good argument, therefore it makes you dumb'.

It is better for a fool to remain silent than speak and thereby, prove it beyond doubt. Read something to that effect in the Proverbs. If you have even a spark of sentience, I have yet to see any credible evidence of same. If and when you show some signs of anything exceeding a room-temperature I.Q., I will be sure to acknowledge it.

kid: Ken, first off, the difference in why your 'poor me' arguments fall short in regards to the Colorado Bar Examiners Board is this. YOU chose to try to become a lawyer. Then when they had you try to take a psych exam you refused to do so.

If one of the Examiners in California told you that you had to get down on your knees and give him a blowjob to become a lawyer, would you be entitled to refuse without penalty, and if not, why not? Public officials only have the power the law invests in them, and no other. James Madison wrote that preservation of a free government requires

not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained; but more especially, that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves, nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

James Madison, Address (to the General Ass’y. of the Commonwealth Of Va.; undated), reprinted in 2 James Madison, The Writings of James Madison (1783-1787) at 122-23 (emphasis added).

Explain, if you can, what the salient difference is between a public official making the demand that you give him a blowjob (illegal) and his forcing you to submit to a psychiatric examination (under the circumstances, equally illegal) as a condition of consideration of your application to become an attorney.

As for Cam, he chose to place Lauren in grave danger, even if he didn't actually throw her off the cliff. He placed himself in a precarious situation on account of statements to others that would lead them to believe that (1) he didn't want Lauren and (2) would be inclined to kill her if he had half a chance. By your metric, he obviously brought this criminal prosecution down upon himself by his own volitional acts. Precisely what is the difference again? [cont.]

 
At 12/26/09, 9:52 AM , Anonymous ken said...

[as cont.]:

kid: In regards to Cam, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence Ken. All defendants are. He is entitled to this presumption until he either pleads out or is found guilty by a jury. Period. You seem to confuse law with the court of public opinion. You also contradicted yourself yet again. You go back and forth like a tennis ball in terms of your opinion on Cam's guilt or innocence.

Your stupidity is exceeded only by your lack of perspicacity. The only place where Cam (or any other defendant, for that matter) is actually entitled to a presumption of innocence is in a court of law. Actual guilt or innocence should not be confused with legal guilt or innocence. My view is and always has been scrupulously consistent, albeit too nuanced for a troglodyte such as you to discern and understand. I don't know whether Cam threw Lauren off that cliff and don't expect that I will ever know (unless he confesses).

kid: Then one minute you are talking about how Cam should be let out already and then on the other hand you start running your mouth about how you think he threw Lauren off the cliff. Well which one is it Ken?

You have serious reading comprehension issues, which hardly augurs well for your performance on the LSAT, Baby Bar, or Bar. It is logically possible for Cam to be guilty in fact but innocent in the eyes of the law, and vice versa. As for Cam being able to throw bail, I think he should be. As far as their not prosecuting him again, yesterday was his seventh Christmas behind bars; in my judgment, the State could find a better use for their funds -- but then again, I don't have all the facts, and Craig Hum might have a very good reason for soldiering on.

kid: Regardless of my dislike of you, the reason I support their decision is because it is very obvious that you have mental/emotional issues that make you a potential danger to yourself and to others and that until you get these issues treated you will continue to be a danger.

I might say the same about you and Ted, if in fact you are not Ted (I'm not entirely convinced of that fact at this point, as you have chosen to spew his unique and bizarre idiocy). Your point?

 
At 12/29/09, 10:45 AM , Anonymous ken said...

usuals:

Ken: And Paulie Walnuts only "ASKS" for protection money.

Ted: And have you given Paulie any money? Of course not -- and yet you still have your walnuts. Imagine that! And so this analogy falls flat.

Not really. What was rightfully mine was wrongfully withheld from me (the right to a hearing is of constitutional timber). As such, the analogy is on all fours.

Ted: But to the matter at hand: In Colorado, the burden falls upon the CANDIDATE to the Bar to demonstrate psychological fitness to practise law. When you, as a candidate, went before the Bar Examiners, they expressed some concerns about your psychological fitness [personal attack elided]. But you refused to address these concerns. And the Bar Examiners were thus left -- by YOU -- with no alternative than to recommend that your application be DENIED. And that's that. I don't think we need to worry about Paulie Walnuts coming around with a baseball bat to bust your kneecaps.

Here's the fundamental question that you have failed for nearly ten years to address (because you know what the answer is, and your personal animus toward me forbids you from conceding it): "Can a public official, by virtue of his position, do not only what his powers allow but also, what they forbid?"

Alexander Hamilton answers this one in Federalist #78: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. ... To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Now, let us assume that the county of Los Angeles has the lawful authority to imprison people pending trials on the merits. Legally speaking, this authority is limited by the Eighth Amendment stricture that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required." Schlib v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 365 (1971). Let us also suppose that Judge Pastor allows to let Cam post bail of $100,000,000. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, Judge Pastor's order is in patent violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Do Los Angeles authorities have the right to continue to incarcerate Cam (presuming, of course, that even Daddy Warbucks can't post bail of $100 million)? You would say that they do, for in your scenario, public officials, by virtue of their position, are not only allowed to do what they are authorized to do but also, what they are most emphatically not authorized to do. [cont.]

 
At 12/29/09, 10:46 AM , Anonymous ken said...

continued:

So, let's apply the rule across the board to your precious Camster, who has been in his cage at the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for the past seven Christmases. Sure, they are not officially allowed to neglect attention to Cam's legitimate medical needs, but they can do not only what the law demands, but what it does not authorize. Sleep deprivation during the trial? Again, they are well within their rights to do so according to you, as they can do not only what the law demands, but what it does not authorize. Depriving him of shower facilities? Again, they are well within their rights to do so according to you, as they can do not only what the law demands, but what it does not authorize. Put on perjured testimony at the grand jury level, and even at trial? Again, they are well within their rights to do so according to you, as they can do not only what the law demands, but what it does not authorize, by virtue of their position.

Ever read Leviathan, Ted? Do you know anything about the Peace of Westphalia, and its legal implications?

In short, everything the authorities have done to Cam during this seven-year ordeal is perfectly acceptable to you, because you believe that public officials can do not only what the law demands, but what it does not authorize. SO STFU AND STOP YOUR INFERNAL WHINING, TED!!!

You are so blinded by your hatred of me -- borne of all those arguments you lost throughout the years -- that you can't even pretend to think straight.

 
At 1/5/10, 1:26 PM , Anonymous none said...

Wonder if the kiddies have removed the comments page? It's been down for almost a week now, which is a pretty sure sign that it isn't just a technical glitch.

 
At 1/10/10, 4:00 PM , Blogger Compuelf said...

They switched to a more logical format. No more reading a post, then scrolling up to read replies.

It only took the PTB how many years?

 
At 1/28/10, 3:31 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_14286908

Man must stand trial in cliff death

A judge refused today to dismiss murder charges against a man accused of tossing his 4-year-old daughter off a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor also refused to set bail for Cameron John Brown, who has been in jail for more than six years.

Two juries have failed to reach a verdict in the case.

"I believe there should be a third trial in this case, and there will be,"

Pastor's ruling came after Brown's attorney, Pat Harris, argued that the jury's deadlock of six in favor of second-degree murder and six for involuntary manslaughter meant Brown was acquitted of first-degree murder.

 
At 1/28/10, 5:54 PM , Anonymous ken said...

So much for Geragos never abandoning a client....

 
At 1/28/10, 5:58 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Yeah, twice.

 
At 1/28/10, 9:10 PM , Anonymous ken said...

I'm sorry, but I have a major-league moral problem with this one. We're looking at seven years in the can without a conviction.

I absolutely cringe at the thought of him having to be defended by a P.D. on the third go-around, when Hum has had two bites of the apple already.

It just ain't cricket. It offends my sense of fairness.

 
At 1/29/10, 12:47 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Dead silence at the kiddies' blog.

"I believe there should be a third trial in this case, and there will be." Pastor thinks he's guilty. And he has heard ALL the evidence, including the stuff the jury didn't. Remember, this is supposed to be the fair judge.

Things look pretty bleak for Cam at this point. This case needs a competent attorney with time to devote to it, and it sounds like the best Cam will get for Round Three is an over-worked P.D.

 
At 1/29/10, 12:52 PM , Blogger loretta said...

I'm surprised, as well, that the prosecution didn't just offer a plea at this point. Imagine the expense of a third trial. There has to be better things for Hum and his staff to do.

There must be something more to this than we know. It seems almost personal at this point.

I don't think a Public Defender could do any worse than Geragos or Harris. Regardless of the inept defense, Hum has really disappointed me.

Oh well. Third time's the charm.

 
At 1/30/10, 10:17 AM , Anonymous Karen C. said...

Well, looks like Y'All will have to start posting again! I'm going to comment here as Karen C. (formerly just KC before, till someone took it! LOL...) which just makes it easier. Can defense (whomever it ends up being) come to State now, with their own deal, since this ruling? I would think...

 
At 1/30/10, 11:56 AM , Anonymous ken said...

I think the kiddies are in shell-shock, Loretta.

Ted is going to have to deal with the fact that having a top-drawer attorney doesn't mean that you can beat the system (or for that matter, even beat a measure of justice out of it), and that his evil and hopelessly biased adversary Ken is actually more sympathetic to his position than that scrupulously fair and incorrigibly liberal gay judge. LOL!


The ruling pretty much guarantees that Cam will spend an eighth Christmas in the slam, as the wait for a P.D. will be substantial, appellate review should take a minimum of six months, and the odds are about one-in-ten that Geragos' paper will even be read by a judge.

Even more disturbing is the tenor of the ruling, as reported by Denise. We haven't seen all of the evidence. Judge Pastor has and more importantly, he has seen literally ALL of it. If he is of the opinion that Cam is probably guilty, that is telling us something Team Cam would rather gnaw their arms off than admit.

I don't share your pessimism regarding Geragos, even though I have found him to be at fault more than once. He is one of the few attorneys who can call a press conference and have the Fourth Estate show; a P.D. doesn't have that kind of pull and just as certainly, doesn't have the resources to get up to speed and mount a credible defense.

To me, it is all about failure of the system.

 
At 1/30/10, 11:57 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Hell, I think Kent could probably post over there and get away with it. They have been kicked in the teeth, well and truly.

 
At 1/30/10, 12:01 PM , Blogger loretta said...

As I posted on the KKK blob, I think Geragos was the perfect person to demonstrate - if it were actually a reality - that there was a conspiracy to convict Brown to cover some sort of liability issue.

So far, no evidence has been shown to prove that this is the case, so all the posturing and accusations are pretty futile at this point.

 
At 2/1/10, 1:51 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Four days of complete silence from the kiddies. I didn't think it was even possible to shut Ted up for that long.

 
At 2/2/10, 7:53 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Cross-posted from the kiddies' blog:

The silence here is deafening. Where is Geragos' brief? Although I recognize that I am in the distinct minority here, I have serious intuitive misgivings concerning the propriety of the Court's decision -- just goes to show that I am crazy, because that animal ought to be locked up, right, Ted? -- but no ammunition with which to work.

If this decision was a manifest injustice, I would expect it to be clear from the briefs. We can't hope to have a transcript, but it would almost certainly be cumulative, for as a general rule, oral argument is a summary of the most important part of the briefs. Make the case, if you can!

Right now, all you have on this site is innuendo and speculation. The Richard Fine situation is important and I have been following it intently, but any linkage between it and Cam's situation is -- at least, for the moment -- as Loretta has observed, safely in the realm of the tin-foil hat. If there was something with Judge Pastor's decision that engenders cause for alarm, one would expect this to be obvious from the arguments presented in connection with the Motion.

 
At 2/4/10, 12:08 AM , Anonymous オテモヤン said...

オナニー
逆援助
SEX
フェラチオ
ソープ
逆援助
出張ホスト
手コキ
おっぱい
フェラチオ
中出し
セックス
デリヘル
包茎
逆援
性欲

 
At 2/6/10, 3:39 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Cross-posted to the kiddies' blog:

Judicial Watch has taken interest in the Fine case. The case is styled Dutton v. LA County Sheriff Dep't., 10-cv-0595-VBF (C.D.Cal. filed Jan. 27, 2010). If any of you are still alive out there, I can send you a copy of the complaint (accusing the LASD of refusing to grant Dutton the opportunity to interview Fine, which is a patent First Amendment violation).

It is extremely difficult to even envision a logical nexus between the Brown and Fine cases, but the latter is a bona fide outrage.

 
At 2/9/10, 3:12 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great blog as for me. It would be great to read a bit more concerning this matter. Thanx for giving that data.

 
At 2/9/10, 5:15 AM , Anonymous ken said...

The more things change, the more they stay the same. From USENET, twenty years ago:

>> I agree with 2...@tygra.UUCP. What is it that gets people pissed off about Theodore Kaldis?????

>He has one-half the mental prowess of Dan Quayle? Just a guess...

And he loses half a point due to roundoff error, too.
----
Merlyn LeRoy

 
At 2/12/10, 6:56 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Two weeks. The kiddies have gone home to Mama, with the exception of one burst in USENET. Cross-posted from the blog (which no one on Team Cam has contributed to or is even looking at):

Ted,


What on Earth are you whining about? And why aren't you whining about it intelligently on this blog? The odds of success for the typical criminal appeal are about one-in-ten, and the odds for this one are probably less than that. Just how it is. And the PD Cam is going to have is going to be overworked and outclassed. The likelihood of Cam spending two more years in the stir is high.


You know how it is, though, Ted. Your Jesus is evidently doing right by Cameron, punishing him for the murder he did commit even though it appears unlikely that human justice will result in a first-degree murder conviction. You keep telling us that your god is a stand-up character, and it would appears that he is standing on the evil Cameron John Brown. Your faith is your own; all the rest of us can do is laugh.


A lot of people might even be on [Ted's' side if you gave them a reason to be. Problem is, you think everyone should rally behind you on the strength of your say-so alone. I have intrinsic problems with seven years of preventative detention, but I cannot say whether the law is the problem, or our courts' willful defiance of it. And you're not helping matters....


BTW, have you put down a deposit on your Maybach yet? ROTFLMAO!!!

 
At 2/14/10, 3:01 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:
Hell, I think Kent could probably post over there and get away with it. They have been kicked in the teeth, well and truly.

I'm waiting for them to claim I have. I didn't post on the kook blog during the second trial. Still, they claimed I did.

 
At 2/14/10, 3:06 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:

I have intrinsic problems with seven years of preventative detention, but I cannot say whether the law is the problem, or our courts' willful defiance of it.

That Cameron's pre-trial detention is legal can't be questioned. It is legal. It is not, IMO, ethical.

Seven years in jail is far too long for Cameron, or anyone, without a conviction.

I say allow the man sizable bail. Enough to motivate whomever pays it to ensure Cameron will be present for the trial.

 
At 2/25/10, 4:57 AM , Anonymous ken said...

I'm starting to wonder whether Ted hasn't moved on to that Great Big Bulk Cookie Factory in the Sky.

Whereas the other Kiddies might have enough self-control to STFU upon the orders of counsel, that has historically been beyond Ted's skill set.

 
At 2/27/10, 6:42 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Guess they finally sent old Ted to the funny farm up in Atascadero. Silence is just not like him, and there haven't been any obituaries.

 
At 2/27/10, 6:51 AM , Blogger loretta said...

The most likely reason is he has been severely chastised by the attorneys from the second trial, or the new attorney handling the third trial.

There must be an unofficial gag order put on the KKK. Even that blabbermouth "Case Insider" (aka Jean Paredes) is silent, and god knows she never shuts up.

I guess we'll just have to wait for news of the third trial.

The twins did irreperable damage to this case, and I wouldn't be surprised if some third party came down on them with both feet.

That Toad isn't posting on Usenet about any other subjects is odd, but he must be afraid to face everyone after all he did.

 
At 2/28/10, 5:30 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Even that wouldn't explain it, Loretta. Ted has the proverbial skin of a rhino when it comes to USENET debate, and he is obsessed with homosexuality (which leads many to believe that he is self-loathing and closeted or at least, has unusually powerful homosexual urges a la Ted Haggard) and the Catholic Church. The guy literally has no shame.

There is no reason why he could not continue to bust off remarks like "There is MUCH that is amiss in the Roman Church. Christians would do well discover the real meaning of Sola Scriptura." That the Evilgelicals make Rome look like a freakin' convent is beside the point, and Ted has never quite gotten that.

Those of us who are comfortable in our sexuality could care less as to Ted and Fred do in bed, and those of us who care about liberty insist upon coming to the defense of the oppressed, which is why I have tangled with him for so long (and why he is so obsessed with me). If anything has frustrated him regarding me, it is that. I don't understand him, and he will never understand me.

I don't know if the kiddies tore the comments section down or it is just down (it is, after all, early on Sunday morning), but the latter would not surprise me at this point.

 
At 3/1/10, 5:24 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Cross-posted:

California's courts are melting down. Sherri M. Okamoto, Chief Justice Lashes Out in State of Judiciary Address, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Feb. 24, 2010 at 1, at http://www.metnews.com.

Wow. Somebody must have read you kiddies the riot act! For Ted to STFU is unprecedented, but could be explained by death, serious illness, or the eminently believable confinement to a mental institution. But Team Cam as a whole?

 
At 3/9/10, 2:17 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

The kiddies have gone completely off the grid. I wrote Patty some time ago just to see if Ted was alive -- no answer. I wrote Ted today to see if the e-mail gets bounced back as undeliverable.

I'm starting to seriously wonder if one or both are dead.

 
At 3/10/10, 7:56 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

My best guess is they are just quiet.

 
At 3/10/10, 8:00 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

UPDATE: Cameron Brown case

By Denise Nix on March 2, 2010 12:52 PM

Cameron Brown was scheduled for a pretrial hearing today, but it was postponed until March 10 since his defense attorney apparently misscheduled the date.

A quick search with the 2nd District Court of Appeal yielded no results for any appeals of Judge Michael Pastor's decision in January to keep the case going and bail in place.

 
At 3/11/10, 7:51 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Perhaps we should write Geragos and advise him of the next hearing.

Bit of a shock that they haven't even appealed Pastor's bail ruling. So much for zealous advocacy....

 
At 3/11/10, 7:54 AM , Blogger loretta said...

My cynical take on this is that the Brown family (the KKK) are broke.

Nobody cares about you when you're poor. Too bad this is also ironic and bitter karma to a spoiled rich kid and his acquisitive and judgmental brother in law. Oh well. Sux to be them.

 
At 3/12/10, 3:33 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Karma does seem to have run over Ted's dogma. But while it is hard to feel bad for the "victim," ours is a system so foul that it is a clear and present danger to every one of us.

My brother-in-law was investigated for vehicular homicide just because he was driving the car in which my mother-in-law was killed during an auto accident. No one TRIES to kill his mother! If that isn't over the top, what is?

 
At 3/13/10, 4:12 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

It's amazing -- Ted shuts up, and ALL of his sockpuppets go to that happy hunting ground in the sky. Even Wal-Mart Greeter Guy.

 
At 3/31/10, 12:43 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

The kiddies 86'd a post, so they are still out there. But someone must have read Ted the riot act in three-part harmony....

 
At 5/6/10, 6:27 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Appellate court denies petition in Cameron Brown case (Denise Nix, 5/5/10, Daily Breeze)

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_15026265

This is literally not good. I'm now almost entirely in the "Enough is Enough" camp with Ken and Kent.

 
At 5/8/10, 7:26 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

So, it's on to trial #3.

 
At 6/7/10, 10:40 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great site. Check mine out at island2012.com

Casey Serin

 
At 7/17/10, 6:19 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Geragos "has never left a client after a hung jury" ... until yesterday. His firm has turned the Cameron Brown case over to a court-appointed lawyer, Herbert Barish, as the Public Defender's or Alternate Public Defender's offices cannot take a case.

Denise Nix writes in the Daily Breeze that Craig Hum expects "it would be about a year before the case goes to trial again."

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_15533813

 
At 7/21/10, 11:32 AM , Blogger AmyJo said...

At this point, he probably should've just plead this out. He'd have been out of jail by now.

 
At 7/27/10, 10:10 PM , Anonymous ken said...

And here, I thought Theodore A. Kaldis was dead -- we couldn't be that lucky.

Saving this for posterity, as per usual:

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt, The Odor.

So, they finally let you out of Atascadero. (All residents at Atascadero State Hospital are male and have a mental disability and pose a threat to others or themselves.) Or did you break out?

Another year. Seems that either Cam is as guilty as sin, or Jesus is too busy sodomizing young boys on the golf course to lend any assistance. Anyone who believes in your god is unfit to balance his own checkbook, Ted.

Geragos has never abandoned a client before. Seems that even he believes Cam is guilty, and he doesn't want the loss on his record.

A third trial, with a poorly-compensated no-name public defender who is just learning the case. Even Daddy Warbucks won't throw any good money after bad. SurfDude should just plead out and salvage what little he has left of his life.

So why so silent, The Odor? Has Patty finally had the sense to cut her losses, and sail off into spinsterhood?

 
At 8/2/10, 5:13 AM , Anonymous ken said...

The Odor is back, complete with his immaculate obsession. X-posted for the usual reason:

The Odor: "It's not what I "believe", it's what I KNOW. Ken Smith applied to become a lawyer in Colorado, and was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination. That is a FACT, and it is NOT in question. Applying Occam's Razor to this set of circumstances would indicate that Ken has psychological problems."


It's not what I "believe," it's what I KNOW. Cameron Brown was indicted for the alleged murder of Lauren Sarene Key. This is a FACT, and NOT in question. Applying Occam's Razor to this set of circumstances would indicate that Cameron did in fact murder Lauren. (After all, more than half of the jurors found him guilty of murder.)


Your rules, consistently applied.

 
At 8/11/10, 6:22 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Usual caveats:

Tediot: "Ken's afraid that his schlong is smaller than mine."

What value is there in having something you can't use? We've established that you were just too butt-fuckin' ugly (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg) to attract a woman in the first place, and your Facebook and LA Times photos show that the years since that photo was taken (I'm told the camera did not survive) have not been kind to you. Your weight problems mean seriously high blood pressure, and anything you would be taking to control it is going to have negative sexual side-effects.

You said that when you had the opportunity, it wasn't worth the bother. And besides, there is that Christian thingy about not having sex outside of wedlock....

Bottom line, the only place that you could get any action is a glory hole in your local gay bookstore ... where your partner doesn't have to look at you.

 
At 8/30/10, 8:13 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

I see that you are still in the habit of excising any post establishing you as a sociopath and an ignoramus, Ted. There's nothing to injure you with; you have done so much permanent damage to your reputation that anything I might do by pointing out the cold facts would be cumulative.


As I have stated repeatedly, I find the interminable delay in taking this matter to trial both offensive to basic standards of decency, and in violation of international law. That having been said, it is not unusual for prosecutors to try a case three times in cases of hung juries, more than half of the jurors sitting have found Cameron guilty of some degree of murder, and I am unaware of anything the State has done that they did not have a legal right to do -- for reasons even your sister agrees are reasonable.

I've been perfectly fair, and even you know it.

Are you really too stupid to figure out the Biblical prohibition against using different weights and measures? God must have a sense of humor: every time you have tried to beat me up with an impermissible and unfair argument, I'm able to use it against Cam. Hey, don't look now, but the LASD was on to something about Baby-Killer Cam (as if the good crew at PYSIH needed any further proof). Since you've never STFU'd and pissed off, you WHACK-JOB, I can laugh at your impotent flailing.

Speaking of which, have you made your down-payment on that Maybach?

 
At 9/15/10, 7:58 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Usual justifications:

Sorry, Ted, but even you know that dog won't hunt. Unless you lay out all the facts -- and in particular, those facts indicating that the demand was a form of retribution -- you are misleading your readers. But then again, the folks who weren't asked to submit to such an examination are unanimous in their assessment of the KooooooK Kaldis Klan:


Thanks for including the blog, Max! I wish I had been able to read more of it. There was so much other info about shitbag family members, new idiot wives, accounts from friends about what a douchebag Cameron Brown is… it was hard to whittle it all down into a single story.

While Ted Kaldis is a well-known annoying Internet “kook” on usenet’s misc.legal newsgroup, Cameron Brown married his apparently unattractive fraternal sister Patty only for her money, which is now pretty much gone.

Hell for this idiot and his wifey and brother in law. Hope its hot and firey with rocks and cliffs.


Everybody knows you for the nut-job you are. And every juror in both trials believed that Csm was guilty -- they simply couldn't agree on the punishment. (I finally saw the Inside Edition piece.) So, why DON'T we see a photo of Patty on Cam's blog, Ted? Did she break all the available cameras? Is what they're all (including Sprocket, who found Patty almost revolting to look at) saying true? Given how ugly you are, it would almost be a given.

Or were you and Patty fathered by different men (making your mother a slut)?

 
At 9/19/10, 3:14 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

From da udder blog -- the standard justifications apply.

Ted: "But then you were asked to submit to a psychological examination. That is a fact, and there is no getting away from it."

But then Cam was indicted for the alleged murder of Lauren Key. That is a fact, and there is no getting away from it. The public has simply been asked to judge, on the basis of that which is known, whether it appears that Los Angeles authorities were justified in taking such action. I say that, based upon the overwhelming public approval, that it does indeed appear so.


A lot of sober people question your judgment, if not your very sanity, and with good cause. You are constantly on the wrong side of disputes, and your feeble defense of your positions is often risible. As everybody outside the Kook Kaldis Klan agrees with my assessment that Cam's indictment was proper, your persistent attempts to smear me with innuendo are ad hominem. By stark contrast, the question of whether Patty resembles you in a shoulder-length dishwater-grey wig is certainly germane to the controversy, as it speaks to Cam's motivation in marrying her -- when he could obviously attract more objectively desirable consorts. With their judgment unimpaired by partisan interests, both the jurors (24 out of 24 found him guilty of something) and the general public have reached the presumptively correct conclusion, as so ably summarized by the PYSIH poster:


Thanks for including the blog, Max! I wish I had been able to read more of it. There was so much other info about shitbag family members, new idiot wives, accounts from friends about what a douchebag Cameron Brown is… it was hard to whittle it all down into a single story.

While Ted Kaldis is a well-known annoying Internet “kook” on usenet’s misc.legal newsgroup, Cameron Brown married his apparently unattractive fraternal sister Patty only for her money, which is now pretty much gone.

Hell for this idiot and his wifey and brother in law. Hope its hot and firey with rocks and cliffs.
He looks like a kook too.

 
At 10/1/10, 7:48 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Usuals.

Ted: "[Blather by Ken Smith elided by moderator.]"

Winston Chur chill’s observations regarding Adolf Hitler applies with equal force to you, Ted:

You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like -- they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, but in their hearts there is unspoken fear: They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stir ring at home -- all the more powerful because forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the might iest potentates are thrown into panic.

Winston S. Churchill (BBC Radio broadcast to London and America, Oct. 16, 1938), reprinted at Randolph S. Churchill, Into Battle 58-59 (Hesperides Press 2006). Like you, Ted, Hitler was a good Christian, terrified of dissenting thoughts.


Censorship is the opening argument of the tyrant. Goebbels claimed that it is "the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion," Foreign News: Consecrated Press, Time, Oct. 16, 1933, and Lenin thought that to give the weapon of freedom of the press to one’s opponent is to "ease the enemy’s cause." Vladimir I. Lenin, Pravda (1912). “The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the free dom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765).

Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authori tarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman's intrusive thumb or a judge's heavy hand.

Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 498 (1966) (Stewart, J., dissenting).

Got confidence, Ted? Obviously not.

 
At 11/13/10, 2:09 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Three more days until what I figure is a significant anniversary:. Camoron will have been jailed awaiting trial longer than a plea-bargained prison sentence for manslaughter (seven years).

 
At 11/14/10, 8:37 AM , Anonymous ken said...

As per usual:

Ken: Here's an intriguing war story from one of the attorneys in our discussion group.

TeddieBeer: How'd they let you in? (Or did you finally submit to that psychological examination? ... And if so, how did you pass it?)

It's not like a church, which even has to let you in despite your obvious mental illness, Ted. We have plenty of first-rate talent -- Harvard, Stanford, M.I.T., et al. -- I am recognized as an equal on the merits. But then again, you already knew this, having begrudgingly acknowledged my intellect.

Cam and Bubba will be celebrating another anniversary, will they not? They will have many happy returns; I can't imagine that Cam will get decent representation from an overworked public defender and by now, Daddy Warbucks has undoubtedly written that loser out of his will. You keep advising others to cut their losses; have you finally told Patty to go ahead and do Ahkmed down at the Seven-Eleven?

 
At 12/4/10, 7:47 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

I'm sorry, but I have lost track. Has the next trial been scheduled yet?

 
At 1/1/11, 12:27 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Cross-posted for obvious reasons:

Looks like I'm finally going to get the chance to meet Grrrrr-EGO this year. Just thinking about all the fun questions I will be able to ask him, such as why Cam Brown is the only client he has ever dumped, whether he thinks that the LA court system is so corrupt that getting a fair trial there is impossible, why he never filed a habeas action grounded in the ICCPR to get bail for the poor guy, and whether he agrees with my assessment of TeddiBeer.

 
At 2/28/11, 8:16 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Next hearing, 4/22/11. Not that anyone is inclined to notice....

 
At 3/29/11, 1:02 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Some of us are still paying attention. :)

 
At 3/29/11, 1:54 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Just in case anyone is interested, I passed on the opportunity to meet GRRRR-Ego.

 
At 4/2/11, 2:39 PM , Blogger forevernitefan said...

I heard Teddie Kaldis has his house foreclosed upon recently.

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=01-09-00270-CV&s=TX&d=44123

 
At 4/12/11, 10:29 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

He's never lived in Texas. He's living with his sister in Ventura.

 
At 5/30/11, 12:57 PM , Anonymous K. Wills said...

Is there ANY news regarding Cameron and his case? Anything at all?

 
At 6/8/11, 2:10 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Next court date: 7/26/11. Most likely outcome: another continuance.

Even Ted has given up. He's on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/people/Theodore-A-Kaldis/1286363105 but his presence on the Net is negligible.

 
At 6/9/11, 11:26 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Only 16 friends for poor Teddy, including Doug Gilliland. Paaaa-thetic.

 
At 6/10/11, 4:40 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

That's just sad.

 
At 6/16/11, 10:06 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

I wouldn't read that much into Teddie's Facebook friend list. I make it a point not to use the damn thing, mostly because I am a known subversive and want to protect my friends. (Speaking of which, a shout out to Wayne is in order.)

Having Ankerberg as a friend, otoh, is sad. Being conservative is not what should get anyone off....

 
At 7/19/11, 6:58 PM , Anonymous K. Wills said...

I can only speak for myself, but you needn't worry about me. I'm not as outspoken as you, but I find we agree more often than we disagree and I can handle my own.

 
At 11/18/11, 10:28 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey...........has anybody checked out my site?

Casey Serin here just seeing what's shakin' wit everybodyz.

Come on over to island 2025.com. It's a party baby.

Casey Serin.

You know me.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home