Monday, August 29, 2011

Happy Birthday Sweet Lauren


Never forgotten.

69 Comments:

At 8/30/11, 4:05 PM , Blogger cynicalhedonist said...

Happy Birthday Lauren!! Rest assured that your mean ol' daddy is still rotting away slowly but surely all by himself, most likely to never again roam the beautiful countryside he so much adored. Justice is slow but justice will be served and you can rest easy knowing that people still miss and adore you!

 
At 9/12/11, 8:49 PM , Anonymous K. Wills said...

Another birthday without justice for Lauren. My hope is that this will be the last one.

 
At 9/25/11, 4:58 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

X-posted from the KKK blog:

I've kind-of let this saga go, as you have fallen off the face of the earth. Wayne Delia had noted something remarkably sad: "Only 16 friends for poor Teddy, including Doug Gilliland. Paaaa-thetic." Including John Ankenberg, for cry-iy! Your best years were lost in a blind rage, and I honestly don't care what happens to you any more.

Let's see now, Ted ... I just checked the LASD's Inmate Locator, and it appears that it is a veritable certainty that Cam the (officially, still alleged) Baby-Killer will celebrate his eighth anniversary (and ninth Christmas) in solitary. If he had only had the benefit of your sage advice, he would have pled out to a lesser-included, and be sentenced to time served four years ago. Now, it looks like we'll have to take up a collection over at the other site to buy Patty a new top-end vibrator, so she can finally achieve her first squirting orgasm.

She did have the good sense to move on, right?

Didn't I warn you seven years ago? The State had a powerful case; the only thing going for you that it wasn't in Texas. Funny how what goes around, comes around....

I can see where Cam is coming from. Jail? Patty? Jail? Patty? Jail? Patty? No wonder he is not in a particular hurry to leave the stir. I can't feel bad about bad people ... and you are definitely "bad people." I'm not sanguine about any man having to wait eight years for his day in court, but I can be persuaded to make an exception in the case of the Kook Kaldis Klan.

Instead of remembering Lauren, you chose August as an opportunity to settle an old score. Only Loretta, Bill, and CG commemorated Lauren's birthday this year; she would have been 15 a month or so ago. You gloated over the injustice I suffered, and never answered any of my questions straight up. And with an over-worked and poorly-paid PD in his corner, Cam is as far from shooting the curl again as he ever was. Karma can be such a baitch....

Have what's left of a life. I honestly don't give a fig.

 
At 9/25/11, 5:07 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Really, Ted. There are bad people and there are really bad people, and I would not want to have to look inside your soul. You are the most reprehensible excuse for a human that I've ever met, and I've met Bob Larson.

Enjoy that condo on the River Styx.

 
At 9/25/11, 5:46 PM , Blogger loretta said...

It's eerie and surreal to see Lauren's picture at age 4 just frozen in time, here. My daughter was 2 months older than Lauren and celebrated her 15th birthday in June. Teenaged girls are no picnic, but I can't imagine looking at a picture of her at age 4, forever unchanged, while life goes on with me. I feel for her mother. The Kaldises are non-existent to me these days.

Sometimes, just sometimes, people get what they deserve. Unfortunately, in Lauren's and her mother's case, this is not true.

 
At 9/26/11, 6:21 AM , Anonymous ken said...

X-posted from the KKK blog:

You are correct in one respect, Ted: I knew that I was swimming against the current of human nature. But then again, so were our Founding Fathers. As Upton Sinclair accurately observed, "[i]t is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

The same applies to you, of course. Your unquenchable personal hatred of me -- which seems to be rooted in my refusal to embrace your psychotic flavor of ancient tribal sky-daddy -- keeps you from applying principles you understand in the abstract in an equable manner with respect to my situation. Cam should fight the powers-that-be, but I should not? Cam is fighting the powers-that-be, and all it has earned him is quasi-permanent residency in a cage. He could be let out tomorrow, if only he pleads out. But there he sits, as his life rots away before his eyes.

And your precious Jesus has been exactly no help.

All Cam has to do is stop fighting, and he will be able to go home. He may not be employable -- convicted felons have a difficult time in landing jobs -- but Daddy Warbucks could set him up for life down in Costa Rica. Patty could move on and pick up the pieces of her life, and you can even start going back to Australia again.

And why should he do this? "As I have said, you need to know who are the chiefs, and who is the indian."

 
At 9/26/11, 6:33 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Good to hear from you, Loretta. I had been under the impression that even the Kook Kaldis Klan had given up on Brown.

The KookKK has become nonexistent for me, as well. That having been said, it offends my sensibilities that anyone should have to wait as long as Brown has for his day in court. Article 9, clause 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release."

The irony here is that Ted doesn't believe in the very international law which could come to Cameron's rescue. Given California's woes, Brown may not see the inside of a courtroom until after Obama leaves office. And yes, I mean 2017.

 
At 9/26/11, 5:29 PM , Blogger loretta said...

Greetings to you, too, Ken. Last night I read some of the comment section over at the K-cubed site and I just cannot understand the philosophy of the defense strategy at this point.

How can those people let Cam rot in jail if he could cop a plea now and be out of that hellhole?

The desire to be RIGHT has overpowered common sense.

Case in point, the Memphis 3 just got out of prison after 18 years or something. I think they are innocent, but rather than waste away in prison for the rest of their lives, or risk being executed (in Damien Echol's case), they pled out with a "Wolford" plea or some such thing and are now free men. Even though they are still technically convicted, they are out of prison.

Why doesn't Cam's family do this for him? Why do they let him stay in jail? He's already done more time than he would have with negligent homicide. Far more.

 
At 9/28/11, 4:46 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

He's probably spent as much time as he would have served for Murder Two, given California's financial woes.

If he's convicted, he probably won't live that long. Better to cut a deal and walk.

 
At 9/29/11, 8:59 AM , Anonymous ken said...

x-posted for usual reasons:

I'd really appreciate it if you would answer this simple question: If you have to know who the chiefs are and who the indian is, and Cam is obviously the indian, why doesn't Cam just take his scalping like a man and move on? (The obvious answer -- that he would be required to go home to Patty -- notwithstanding, of course.) Eight years in the freakin' stir! Michael Milken didn't serve that long.

Remember, according to the sage wisdom of one Theodore A. Kaldis, you can't fight City Hall.

 
At 9/29/11, 9:20 PM , Anonymous ken said...

I just want to pass along sincere condolences to Wayne Delia. When the BoSox screw up, they never do it half-way.

 
At 9/30/11, 8:44 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Those were the worst five minutes of my life: Papelbon's blown save and walk-off win in Baltimore, shortly followed by Longoria's walk-off home run against Scranton/Wilkes Barre Yankees (their AAA players instead of the major leaguers). And today we hear that the beloved and legendary Tito Francona won't be coming back to manage in Boston. But we've been without any real deep heartbreak since 2004, and there's some consolation to the fact that the big rivalry now is Boston/Tampa Bay, instead of Boston/New York.

 
At 9/30/11, 8:55 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

While I'm thinking about it, I gotta agree with Loretta about how surreal it is to see the picture of four-year-old Lauren "frozen in time." My daughter Lisa, "queen of the known universe," is also a couple of months older than Lauren would have been, and I still can't imagine how any father could have murdered his own beautiful daughter. The Kaldis kooks have been mercifully mostly silent on the web for many months now, only recently showing an unwelcome wormsign on the KKK blog. I'm wondering if the financial effects of the first two bills from Geragoes-the-money are still affecting the troll twins; I don't see how that could possibly be avoided.

And Camoron's still in jail. Had he plead out to a lesser included charge, I figure he would have been out three years ago with time served, but no-oo-ooo-oooo. If all he has to look forward to is Patty Kaldis and permanent unemployment, I can sort of see his reluctance to leave jail, but enough is enough.

 
At 10/2/11, 6:33 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

I get it. Now that the Curse has been broken, it just isn't that big a deal. The Yankees is what is wrong with free and unfettered capitalism: they can buy everyone else's stars, and even I could manage them to the playoffs. The NFL's open socialism ensures some measure of competition. Baseball has lost some of its luster, now that the Yanks are always assured the best roster in the game.

The Tigers lost it on Friday, when Justin Verlander got rained off the mound. With him on the hill for two games out of five, they had a punter's chance. Now, it's down to the inevitable.

At least, the Phils should give them some heartburn. Pitching always trumps hitting.

 
At 10/2/11, 6:37 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Last time I was over in Hawai'i, I thought about looking up Sarah and offering condolences ... but unlike CG, I would have been a total stranger.

I even thought of sending Cam a surf calendar last time I was in Aus, but that might have been construed as torture. :-)

 
At 10/2/11, 6:46 AM , Anonymous ken said...

I remember watching Francona when he was with the AAA Denver Bears in old Mile High Stadium. I prefer the high minors, because you get almost the same level of talent, but not the insane beer and ticket prices.

Got to see the Tigers in Comerica -- seventh row, behind home plate -- for $15. It's a lot easier and cheaper to show up at the park in the first inning and barter with the scalpers, who don't want to be stuck with excess inventory. (In Detroit, you can park at one of the casinos, and walk back and watch the game at a pizza parlor if you can't get a decent seat.)

 
At 10/2/11, 9:05 AM , Blogger loretta said...

I haven't recovered from the heartbreak of the 97 World Series when Jose Mesa blew a save in the 9th inning of the 7th game against the Marlins.

Since then, I haven't been too big of a fan; no time, no heart for it anymore. I am currently reading "Moneyball", after which they made the new movie (haven't seen it, might not), but I love Michael Lewis and this is a great book if you like baseball. Highly recommended. You don't even have to be a big baseball geek to enjoy it.

I am rooting for the Phillies - as much as I root for any team in October, but I don't expect to pay much attention to it. I have watched a lot of post-season baseball since 97, even when the Indians looked pretty good in 2007. I could never root for Boston, New York, the Braves or the Marlins, but I have rooted for Detroit, the Angels, and of course the Toronto Blue Jays, who are just the Indians players when they become free agents!

 
At 10/6/11, 3:39 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Steve Jobs passed away yesterday.

"Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything -- all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart. ... Stay hungry. Stay foolish."

All you have to do is what is right, and let the world take care of itself.

 
At 10/9/11, 6:30 AM , Anonymous ken said...

X-post from KKK Blob:

Teddie: I find it most tiresome trying to pound sense into the heads of WHACK-JOBS! So what is a whack-job? I would submit that one who keeps doing the same thing over and over again, but expects to somehow achieve a different result should qualify as one.

At least, we know the cause of your extensive brain damage: You have beaten yourself over the head more often than Silas in The DaVinci Code.

In about a week, we get to celebrate another anniversary: Cam's eighth full year in the slam, a state of affairs that could have been avoided, if only Cam had chosen to cut a deal, instead of stubbornly fighting the system. So, how's that "not knowing who the chiefs and the indians are" thingy working out? Cam holds the key to his cell; all he has to do is cut a deal. He must be a whack-job....

And how's that "braying to Jesus" thingy working out, Ted? I fired the bastard for his continual failure to show up for work and lying on his resume, after giving him more than enough chance to come correct. Yet you keep doubling down on the same failed course of action. You must be a whack-job, too.

And what about Patty? She is on a collision course to spinsterhood, and even if Cam eventually does get out -- at this point, the best thing that could happen to him is that he be sentenced to time served; the 3000s and/or the 195s would likely administer their own brand of justice -- the man who comes out won't bear any resemblance to the man she married. Yet, instead of doing the sensible thing -- serving him papers -- she keeps doubling down on the same failed course of action. She must be a whack-job, too.

 
At 10/9/11, 6:40 AM , Anonymous ken said...

x-post:

And while you are at it, why don't you try knocking some sense into the head of this guy: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/12/defiant_attorney_awaits_cold_d.php? He is, after all, your kind of guy: a Stanford Law School grad and born-again Christian. From the article:

​When a state disciplinary judge suspended Mark Brennan's license to practice law for a year, finding that he intentionally engaged in "obstreperous behavior" in winning a $1.2 million federal verdict against the City of Denver, one requirement for reinstatement was that Brennan submit to an independent medical evaluation.

The combative Brennan thinks that condition is illegal. And he's even more incensed that disciplinary judge William Lucero is asking him to see a psychiatrist -- and share the results of that exam with opposing counsel -- before his motion for a stay of execution will be considered.

"To be plain, Sir," Brennan wrote in a recent letter to Lucero, "Hell will most assuredly freeze over before I see my most private medical and personal information and history disseminated to my worst enemies on the face fo the Earth, who have to date demonstrated only the most complete disregard for the truth and the law imaginable."

Go ahead, Ted. Berate him. Excoriate him. Just make sure you cc me, so that I can have a good laugh as he disembowels you.

 
At 10/9/11, 6:54 AM , Anonymous ken said...

x-post:

Teddie: I would submit that one who keeps doing the same thing over and over again, but expects to somehow achieve a different result should qualify as one.

And if you have been paying attention to the course of my litigation, you will notice that I have been trying to change the rules of the game. It is one thing to kvetch interminably about "our own misfortune impinged by injustice," and quite another to at least try to do something about it. You say that you "are not blind to other's catastrophes" -- except, of course, those suffered by people you despise out of your own illimitable religious bigotry.

You complain that "there are instances within the Los Angeles court system that are equally unthinkable, nevertheless they are fact." Welcome to the American court system; truth be told, Los Angeles is not sui generis. Born-again Rick Perry gleefullly executed people after trials which make Cam's look exemplary. There are irregularities in every trial. Cam is not entitled to a perfect trial; only a "fair" one. You want to see an unfair trial? Check out the saga of Tim Masters, here in Colorado's ostensibly "ideal" legal system.

 
At 10/9/11, 7:04 AM , Anonymous ken said...

X-post:

The way she carried on and wanted to stay with her mother gives me the impression that it seems as if she knew that her father was going to hurt her. Cameron Brown should have his fingers nailed to the side of the cliff and be made to hang off of the side of the cliff until the fingers can no longer support the weight of his body and he falls to his death. Also, he should be shot as he is falling. I hope he gets a dose of prison justice dealt to him, but child killers like this bastard always get PC “to keep them safe”. Who gives a fuck if he is safe? He deserves to die because there is no point in keeping this bastard alive at taxpayers expense.

Dirty horrible sick FU*k!! OMG!! I would do anything at all to get five hours alone with the cunt. TORTURE!!

I didn’t sit on the jury or witness what happened, so I can’t say for certain he’s guilty; but if he is (and I do believe he is) he deserves everything he gets.

While I agree he’s an animal ...

This guys is just evil.

When you read the transcript there’s no doubt that this evil bastard is guilty as hell. He showed no emotion after his daughter’s violent death. Rather he joked with sunbathers. Listen to the 911 tape. Her mother on the other hand was hysterical and even threw up. ... One of his best friends is now even convinced of his guilt.

http://pysih.com/2009/08/12/cameron-john-brown/

If Cam is so obviously innocent, why doesn't anyone else on the planet see it?

 
At 10/9/11, 7:28 AM , Anonymous ken said...

X-post:

You know, Ted, Cam is one of the all-time leaders at PYSIH: the Hell vote is over 98%! This couple

(http://pysih.com/2011/08/17/cheryl-g-christopher-and-elisha-b-christopher/) only got a vote of 89%. This guy (http://pysih.com/2011/10/03/danny-parker/) only got a vote of 76%. Even a bad cop (http://pysih.com/2011/08/17/officer-john-c-newcomb/) couldn't get into the 90%+ range. Not even Judges Conahan and Ciavarella (at 91%;

http://pysih.com/2009/02/24/judge-mark-ciavarella-and-judge-michael-conahan/) could beat out the Camster -- and that was after Team Cam stuffed the ballot box.

"His name is Cameron John Brown and he is a human being." Most folk don't seem to agree.
___________________

Again, I apologize for going off on the KooK, but there are some people who just deserve it.

 
At 10/9/11, 12:05 PM , Blogger loretta said...

People like Ted are those similarly described in Scott Peck's book "People of the Lie." They never recognize their own blatant hypocrisy. See also: Palin, Sarah; Bush, George; Cheney, Dick; Beck, Glenn, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Scott Peterson's groupies are legion, and his family is even better organized and more resourceful than the Kaldis Kooks, but they, too, are drowned in delusion.

Trying to dissuade them from their delusions is futile. Ted will never admit, if he is even capable of enough introspection, that his criticism of your (Ken) fight for justice in your case against Colorado is ridiculous hypocrisy and un-Christian on its face. He's "constitutional incapable" of being honest, as they say in AA.

 
At 10/10/11, 9:11 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's the beauty of it, Loretta. Every argument he uses for Cam is one I use against him, and with greater force. I can't wait to see how he responds to the case of a fellow Christian who did exactly what I did, and for precisely the same reason....

Ironically, I have been more sympathetic to Team Cam's position than pretty much anyone without a surname of Kaldis or Brown but yet, his obsession with me knows no bounds. First, I can see how, were I defending him, I might be able to create reasonable doubt (I think he might have Asperger's and as odd as it may seem, if so, his story might be substantially true; sufferers engage in anti-social behavior, and cannot recognize it as such). Second, I've been justly outraged by the interminable delay in his trial and denial of bail; even the "stone-cold guilty" are entitled to a measure of decency, and there is no way to adequately compensate a man for the loss of a decade of his life, were he to be acquitted. For that reason alone, after two abortive attempts to convict, he should be allowed to make bail.

The PYSIH numbers are staggering. Even a kid who offed his parents so that he could have a party got more "not in hell" votes, both on an absolute and percentage basis, than Cam (http://pysih.com/2011/08/11/tyler-joseph-hadley/). You REALLY have to be a prick to outdo Cam.

As Scott has been adjudged guilty and he was represented at least adequately, I accept the jury's findings. It remains incumbent upon the State to prove its case against Cam, and as I have written on numerous occasions, this is a closer case because the standard of proof is so high. (In Texas, they would have hung him by his balls by now.)

 
At 10/17/11, 9:41 PM , Anonymous ken said...

It gets funnier....

Theodore A. Kaldis: "Ken, I see no useful purpose in trying to engage you in any kind of meaningful exchange. It CAN'T be done. So please go away."
My response: You really ARE dumber than you look, Ted. Accusing me of being a "whack-job" for doing what (a) you claim that Cam is doing (standing up to a corrupt court system) and (b) what seasoned attorneys from top-rank schools with decades of experience (e.g., my Christian colleague from Stanford Law) have done when faced with the same basic choice is hardly a sensible prelude to "any kind of meaningful exchange." Unless and until you finally come face-to-face with your own blatant hypocrisy and general cluelessness about the law, it is pointless to even try.

Remember that you invited this response, and any argument you can use against me applies with greater force to Cam. Eight years is an awfully long time to sit in a cage standing on principle, is it not?

So, how is that braying to Jesus thingy working out for Cam, anyway?

No need to make this discussion go away; it is immortalized on Loretta's blog, which you can't edit into oblivion.

 
At 10/17/11, 9:47 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Oh, I almost forgot: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY! Did Bubba get Cam that pair of lace panties he has been asking for? The eighth anniversary is about linens and lace.

(Copied CH's comment onto the KKK blog.)

 
At 10/23/11, 9:34 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Here's another one, in which a Jersey man was convicted of throwing his wife off a cliff:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/Stephen_Scharf_gets_life_term_for_pushing_wife_from_cliff_.html

 
At 10/31/11, 2:14 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Posted at the KKK blog:

Teddious: "The thing I found most striking is how those who knew this guy best characterised him. But that's NOT how things are in the Cameron Brown case."

cynicalhedonist said...
Happy Birthday Lauren!! Rest assured that your mean ol' daddy is still rotting away slowly but surely all by himself, most likely to never again roam the beautiful countryside he so much adored. Justice is slow but justice will be served and you can rest easy knowing that people still miss and adore you!

At least one of his mates seems to have him pegged, you whack-job! More importantly, we would never have heard of this if you didn't act like the asinine whack-job you are.

 
At 11/5/11, 10:04 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

X-posted for posterity:

TeddieBeer: "You still haven't answered my questions, Ted", says [presumably] Ken. And I'm not going to. ... You might think that you are clever by phrasing it as you do. But it is EXACTLY this sort of thing that got you in trouble with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. As long as you are going to manipulate the phrasing so as to try and receive a desired answer, you will continue to be a LOSER!"

IOW, you won't answer the questions when I ask them in a straightforward manner, because you know that you don't have an answer that will enable you to distinguish Cam's situation from mine in a coherent fashion in a way that benefits you.

Let me help you out with this The difference between my case, Mark's, Allison's and Cam's is that California law empowers the authorities to do what they are doing to Cam. He was reasonably suspected of murdering his illegitimate four-year-old daughter by throwing her off a cliff, and a reasonable grand jury could have found that the fact that he took her to Inspiration Point was, in and of itself, sufficient to support an indictment on first-degree murder charges. And as that makes him a flight risk, he can be held indefinitely, pending a trial on the merits.

Nor can you plausibly whine that your openly-gay and flaming liberal judge has been in any way unfair. NBC reports:

"Of the massive LA County bench, Pastor is only one of 10 judges designated to handle so called "complex litigation long cause" cases. Attorneys from both the prosecution and defense said he has the right balance between running a tight ship and being cordial to all parties.

"Judge Pastor's hallmark really is preparation. He wants to know the case better than the lawyers, better than the witnesses if at all possible, because he know he has to make instantaneous judgments about admissibility of evidence and clearly, even though the trial hasn't been on too long, it's very evident that he knows his stuff and he knows this case," Oakes said."


http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Judge-in-Murray-Trial-Regarded-as-No-Nonsense--130749928.html

He knows Cam's case, and he is of the opinion that a third trial is warranted. IIRC, he turned down your request for bail, and you have beem unable to point to a single binding precedent that he or his predecessor has even inadvertently ignored. So, what do you have to complain about?

By stark contrast, I can point to scores of binding 10CA and SCOTUS precedents the Tenth has knowingly and willfully defied in the course of my litigation. Hence, it isn't about clever phraseology but rather, the simple fact that our judges don't even pretend to follow the law any more, and the fact that you would rather gnaw your arm off than admit that I am right. You have said as much, and we both know it.

By your metric, both you and your precious baby-killing CaMORON are WHACK-JOBS ... and unless Patty has had the good sense to move on, so is she. And this will be the ninth Xmas that the Camster has remained locked in his cage. Sucks to be you ... and him.

 
At 11/18/11, 9:35 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

WOW! Even Jerry Sandusky -- both stand merely accused, and both have said some patently creepy things -- only got a 90% "hell" rating on PYSIH ( http://pysih.com/2011/11/13/jerry-sandusky/ ), as compared to Cam's prodigious 98%. He will need well over a thousand straight "Hell" votes to sink to Cam-level public revulsion.

 
At 11/18/11, 10:30 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.

 
At 11/19/11, 8:08 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

X-posted from KKK for posterity...

Kaldis: "Ken blathered: "You certainly counted CH as a friend when he sent that letter; that he changed his mind when confronted with the evidence is only natural."

Psuh. What "evidence"? Get a clue, Bucko. There ain't any!"

Also: "The cat seems to have got Ken Smith's tongue."

My response: Help me understand this, Teddie. Judge Pastor is one of the best judges in LA, and not exactly known as a friend of the police. You have said that he was far preferable to Judge Arnold. He has forgotten more about criminal law than you and I will ever know. He knows the case better than I will ever care to. If anyone has a credible and independent opinion as to the merits of the State's case, it should be him.

Why, if Cam is as stone-cold innocent as you claim, does he think that Cam should face a third trial??? And why does he think Cam shouldn't be granted bail?

Wassamatta, Teddie Beer? Cat still got your tongue?

 
At 11/21/11, 3:11 PM , Anonymous ken said...

More from the Angry Walrus:

Ken: [Judge Pastor] knows the case better than I will ever care to

Ted admits: I would hope. (Although, if he has been informed by such as Jeff Leslie and Craig Hum, I would not be very optimistic.)


That would be disturbing indeed. As a general rule, ex parte communications are not permitted. Got any credible evidence that this happened?

Ken: If anyone has a credible and independent opinion as to the merits of the State's case, it should be him

Ted whines: The operative word here being "should", of course.


And on what basis do you claim that he isn't? He did sit through the trial -- including the stuff the jury didn't hear. He doesn't have a dog in the hunt. On what objective basis do you claim bias on his part?

Ken: Why, if Cam is as stone-cold innocent as you claim, does he think that Cam should face a third trial???

Ted: You would have to ask him.

I don't need to. Unlike you, I understand the constraints he is operating under. Unlike you, I don't have a putative book and movie deal riding on Cam's innocence. The case against Cam is sufficiently meritorious to warrant a trial on the merits; not a single juror has ever declared that he is stone-cold innocent. Given how obviously biased you are, your opinion is not worth the electrons used to express it.

Ken: And why does he think Cam shouldn't be granted bail?


Ted: Inquisitive minds want to know.(But alas, Ken doesn't seem to be too inquisitive here.)

I've stated my position. If he were before my court, he would have been granted bail, based on our international obligations. But under Ted's Law, the State has a right to keep the Camster in his cage. And under California law, the State has a right to keep the Camster in his cage. Sux for Cam and Patty, but that is not my problem.

Ted: "I'm not too inquisitive about why the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board reached the conclusions they did, either."

Of course not! Inquiry would destroy your argument. If that is your attitude, why should anyone give a damn about Cam? If it doesn't affect us, who cares?

 
At 11/24/11, 6:35 AM , Anonymous ken said...

X-post for usual reasons:

Be honest, Ted: This is about my refusal to suck your psychotic god's diseased donkey-dick. You and that execrable cockroach Gilliland chortled over the injustice visited upon me ... and now, karma has run over your dogma like an out-of-control Mack truck.

Let's see now, Ted: On Thanksgiving Day, what DOES Team Cam have to be thankful for? Cam has Bubba, Patty has your big, black dildo and industrial-strength vibrator, and you are so lousy in bed that even you don't think sex is worth the trouble. Evidently, your god is too busy aiding Tim Tebow to bother with some worthless surf-bum. (Bronco fans, of course, are delighted.)

And while I'm playing in the North Shore surf, Cam is biding time in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite.

Let's just have the debate on religion, and be done with it. Cosmologists are coming around to my way of thinking: We don't live in a universe so much as a multiverse, inhabiting as many as nine dimensions. Your god is too small for my cosmos. My god is too big to need or covet our worship, and could care less as to what happens on this insignificant ball of rock.

Since your god didn't come to Cam's aid, we can only conclude that he really did throw Lauren off the cliff (quite likely), he doesn't give a rodent's biblical transport (also quite likely), or both. Ergo, Cam's incarceration is proof that you are wrong.

 
At 11/24/11, 6:43 AM , Anonymous ken said...

X-posted again:

Ted: [blather by Ken Smith elided]

Whenever I refute your ludicrous libels, you invariably resort to the opening argument of the tyrant. Winston Chur chill’s pithy observation regarding Adolf Hitler applies with equal force to you:

"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) (emphasis added).
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).

Interesting company you find yourself in....

 
At 11/24/11, 7:06 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Again:

Ted: "It's written between the lines."

You mean, of course, right next to Judge Pastor's objective opinion that Cameron John Brown cruelly murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter with malice aforethought? If Pastor thought that this was a case of involuntary manslaughter, he would have pulled the plug on the prosecution right then and there. For that reason, it is obvious that he sees this as a murder, and given your high praise for the judge, his is as objective a verdict as we are likely to see.

Next to tax cases, the one class of cases where state judges are most likely to be fair is in low-profile murder cases. Whereas my judge was forced to resign from the bench for taking bribes to pay for frequent liaisons with top-drawer hookers, Judge Pastor is regarded as one of the best in the business. Moreover, Pastor is at that age where he will not face another election, so he doesn't have to worry about being seen as "soft on crime." He is a liberal, to boot. Every objective factor points to his objectivity, whereas you have a Maybach riding on the outcome (or so you have said). He has no reason to take indecent liberties with the truth; you have plenty of reasons to eviscerate it.

Ironically, the worst thing that could have happened to Cam is that the State did not seek the death penalty. A death sentence would have attracted top-drawer pro bono assistance; after Geragos abandoned him, Cam is left with appointed counsel, impressed into service. Geragos gave him a fighting chance; a nobody leaves him little hope.

 
At 12/9/11, 12:59 PM , Anonymous ken said...

usual rationale....

Ted: Seeing as you apparently suppose to know more than the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, have you been able to successfully show cause as to why you shouldn’t be required to pay the $3000? Or did you have to pay the money?

And here, I would have thought that a worldly man such as yourself would have recognized an obvious abuse of the judicial power when he saw it. [Self-evident sarcasm] Oh, but wait! There is only one known abuse of the judicial power in this country, and that disease is safely confined to Los Angeles! [/sarcasm].

But of course, fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Your well-established emnity toward me -- because I refuse to suck your psychotic god's diseased donkey-dick -- prevents you from judging in a fair and objective manner. Never mind that the Tent Circus' interpretation renders the Good Behavior Clause nugatory, and that the judges' self-serving decision runs rampant over the Framers' clearly-expressed intent. Never mind that the decision violates the Seventh Amendment on its face. All you care about is that I am treated unfairly.

Well, karma has a way of running over your dogma. Cameron John Brown has spent eight years in the slam, and your precious twin sister has had to settle for your big, black dildo for that long (unless she had the sense to bone Ahmed down at the Seven-Eleven). And unless I miss my bet, you lost your deposit on the Maybach.

 
At 12/9/11, 1:01 PM , Anonymous ken said...

ditto:

Teddie Beer: "Nah, it's just that trying to maintain an exchange with you quickly becomes most tiresome. It is impossible to teach a Know-It-All anything new, because, after all, he already knows everything."

When it comes to law, having a law degree qualifies me as knowing a helluva lot more about the law than you do and where it matters, yours is a losing proposition -- even when the law is being applied in a fair, consistent, and above-board manner. Although I find Cam's continued incarceration offensive to our obligations under international law, those who rule America have no respect for the rule of law. All that the California authorities have to estsblish to hold Cam without bail pending a trial is that they have probable cause to believe that he committed the premeditated murder of Lauren Sarene Key, and they have more-than-met their burden. As I have said, while I withhold judgment personally, Judge Pastor has reviewed all of the evidence, and appears to have no skin in the game; it is his opinion that Cam should have to go through a third trial, and your often-absurd and relentlessly partisan whine has given me no reason to doubt his judgment.

Try to look at this objectively. Cameron got a higher PYSIH score than even Jerry Sandusky -- and that takes some doing.

 
At 12/9/11, 1:19 PM , Anonymous ken said...

again:

Let's face it, Ted: Cam is quite happy with Bubba, which is why he continually waives his speedy trial rights. Remember, his alternative is Patty, and if she is anything like you -- she has been described as you in a dishwater-grey wig, and that visual would frighten any sane man -- Bubba probably looks pretty good to him.

He could plead out and be sentenced to time served, but he has consistently refused. Why not, Ted? Why should any of us stand on principle, if the only "rule of law" is that you have to know is who the chiefs are and who the indians are? Your position is a peculiar one: that I do not have the right to fight against tyranny, but the execrable piece of human refuse we know as Cameron John Brown does?

Your only response: "You won't suck my Jesus' diseased donkey-dick and therefore, are less than human!" To counsel that another should accept servility is barbarous, and unbecoming of a man.



Unlike you, Frederick Douglass was a man. He put it this way:

"The only penetrable point of a tyrant is the fear of death. The outcry that they make, as to the danger of having their throats cut is because they deserve to have them cut."

Frederick Douglass, Letter (to James Redpath), Jun. 29, 1860, as reprinted in, Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings 396 (Philip S. Foner, ed., Yuval Taylor, 1999).

Our Founding Fathers risked their lives to secure the rights of Englishmen -- the right to the benefit of the rule of law. If we are not prepared to contest for it ourselves, we dishonor their memory.

 
At 12/9/11, 1:34 PM , Anonymous ken said...

also:

TeddiBeer (quoting a corrupt judge): " In both cases, and despite our warning in Bender, he has persisted in making unsupported allegations of judicial corruption"

Well, it is a matter of record that Chief Judge Nottingham resigned from the bench after it was learned that he was patronizing top-drawer prostitutes on a weekly basis for the better part of a decade. His EIGA forms revealed that his only source of income was from his judgeship, which was about $150,000 a year after taxes. So, how do you keep your wife (who has access to the family finances) from figuring out that you are spending $1500 a week on hookers if the money is coming out of your salary? Answer: You don't. The only rational explanation for this state of affairs was that Nottingham was taking bribes, either in cash or in-kind.

Ted, you claim to be a worldly man. How do you conclude that my deduction was "baseless?" We all know the answer: Every federal judge in America is corrupt, and they will always act to protect the institution whenever they can. Just like it was at Penn State.

But of course, judicial corruption is only confined to Los Angeles, and only confined to one case involving your baby-killing brudder-in-law, right?

 
At 12/14/11, 10:49 AM , Anonymous ken said...

More Kook Kaldis Klan-stuff, preserved for posterity:

Does anyone at Team Cam ever actually think about what you post before you post it? Take this gem:

"It may be a difficult to accept the notion that the prosecution of Cam Brown is driven by hidden County interests. Yet, it explains the multiple incongruent aspects of the case that are otherwise perplexing."

Why is judges openly flouting precedent not "perplexing," Ted? Why should anyone postulate a super-sekrit conspiracy which serves no apparent purpose in Cam's case, when you believe it is somehow manifestly inappropriate for anyone to infer criminal intent from those objectively demonstrable wrongful acts?

The Cam Brown case is easy for the rest of humanity to understand. Child-killers are the lowest of the low, and a father who kills his own daughter to spite the mother is so revolting a concept that the people clamor for justice. Cops are going to invent "emergencies" and hop the fences, like Detective Van Atter in the O.J. case. DAs are going to want to prosecute, and juries will be inclined to convict. You don't need some fanciful and easily-debunked theory about municipal liability (the city of RPV was a part of a Lloyds'-like risk-pooling arrangement, and didn't have a lot of money ay risk) or an ADA running for office (when he wasn't, and this fact was known) to explain it. The DA will be cut a lot of slack because the people demand a prosecution, as is so painfully evidenced by the reaction on PYSIH.

Why does res ipsa loquitur apply here, Ted? Try to make an argument that isn't too absurd for use in Jackass 4.

 
At 12/14/11, 11:46 AM , Anonymous ken said...

More KKK-stuff:

Ted babbled: " Doesn't look much to me like the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with this assertion. ... Let the reader make up his own mind."

By all means, let them! The Panel accused me of making baseless accusations, Ted. Let's see how the Tent Circuit's claim stacks up.

How many reasonable persons are not going to infer that Judge Nottingham took bribes, Ted? The pertinent facts are public knowledge: he resigned at age 61, throwing away a $3 million annuity which would have vested at age 65. His net worth at the time was ~300k, and he had no other retirement savings to speak of. The patronization of prostitutes is a misdemeanor offense under Colorado law -- with fines as low as $75 -- and the local yokels didn't have enough on him to even prosecute. Everything else was "he said, she said," and therefore, impossible for Justice to successfully prosecute. No federal judge has ever been removed from office by Congress for his known transgressions ... but yet, "Judge Naughty" simply walked away.

Why, Ted? Inquiring minds want to know.

So, how do you hide the ~$60,000 a year you are spending on hookers from your wife, who is a real estate agent (some financial savvy required) with unfettered access to the family's finances, when your only source of income (see, the EIGA forms) is your $140k take-home from your judging gig?

The only reasonable inference from this set of facts is that the Judge was taking bribes. So, how is this a "baseless accusation," Ted?

Judges are sociopaths. Everyone from Dershowitz to Llewellyn admits this. That they would lie to justify a certain outcome and act dishonestly to protect the institution is as predictable as the sunrise -- you have accused the LASD and Judge Arnold of this transgression, so you can't honestly run from it. But of course, in Ted's World, all judges are as honest as saints ... with the exceptions of Judges Pastor and Judge Arnold, and only in one case involving a certain baby-killin' brudder-in-law....

I can dissect every claim the judges make with the same precision ... and we both know how thoroughly I have laid your baseless claims of corruption to rest.

Everybody who knows you knows that you are not an honest man, Ted.

 
At 12/14/11, 11:47 AM , Anonymous ken said...

More KKK-stuff:

Ted babbled: " Doesn't look much to me like the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with this assertion. ... Let the reader make up his own mind."

By all means, let them! The Panel accused me of making baseless accusations, Ted. Let's see how the Tent Circuit's claim stacks up.

How many reasonable persons are not going to infer that Judge Nottingham took bribes, Ted? The pertinent facts are public knowledge: he resigned at age 61, throwing away a $3 million annuity which would have vested at age 65. His net worth at the time was ~300k, and he had no other retirement savings to speak of. The patronization of prostitutes is a misdemeanor offense under Colorado law -- with fines as low as $75 -- and the local yokels didn't have enough on him to even prosecute. Everything else was "he said, she said," and therefore, impossible for Justice to successfully prosecute. No federal judge has ever been removed from office by Congress for his known transgressions ... but yet, "Judge Naughty" simply walked away.

Why, Ted? Inquiring minds want to know.

So, how do you hide the ~$60,000 a year you are spending on hookers from your wife, who is a real estate agent (some financial savvy required) with unfettered access to the family's finances, when your only source of income (see, the EIGA forms) is your $140k take-home from your judging gig?

The only reasonable inference from this set of facts is that the Judge was taking bribes. So, how is this a "baseless accusation," Ted?

Judges are sociopaths. Everyone from Dershowitz to Llewellyn admits this. That they would lie to justify a certain outcome and act dishonestly to protect the institution is as predictable as the sunrise -- you have accused the LASD and Judge Arnold of this transgression, so you can't honestly run from it. But of course, in Ted's World, all judges are as honest as saints ... with the exceptions of Judges Pastor and Judge Arnold, and only in one case involving a certain baby-killin' brudder-in-law....

I can dissect every claim the judges make with the same precision ... and we both know how thoroughly I have laid your baseless claims of corruption to rest.

Everybody who knows you knows that you are not an honest man, Ted.

 
At 12/14/11, 12:29 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Again:

Get real, Ted! It is often one thing to know that a murder has been committed, but quite another to prove it. As a society, we insist that the State prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt to a jury of twelve, and California juries are notorious for letting even the guilty walk. This is one of those cases where only two people know what happened, and one of them is dead. And as I have said on numerous occasions, this is a case that could go either way.

As far as a conviction is concerned, Hum came within a whisker of getting Murder Two in the first trial -- ten jurors voted for at least that much. For you to claim that " they still haven't been able to get close to a conviction" is dishonest to the point of delusional.

You don't need a motive to establish that a murder has been committed, but it helps -- in a sense, the courtroom drama is all about assigning blame. No parent in his or her right mind would buy off on the fanciful tale that Cam let Lauren throw rocks over the cliff; the default position is murder. That is why I'd be looking at Asperger's as a defense.

The child-support angle seems more plausible when you look under Patty's bed. Witchcraft, alleges an experienced Pagan. Patty wanted Lauren for her own, as she couldn't have kids the hard way. You have to account for all the facts, as opposed to the facts you want people to consider. Proverbs 18:17, remember?

The State has a viable case, and a clear right to present it. As such, they have the right to keep the Camster in his cage pending a trial on the merits, With an overworked, underpaid PD in his corner, there is a pretty good chance he will be convicted this time, but even if he isn't, the fact that sixteen of twenty-four jurors were willing to convict him of murder proves that the prosecution was not frivolous.

Unlike you, Denise Nix and Sprocket don't have a dog in the hunt. Their reporting has been both honest and competent; there has been no material divergence in the published reports that would suggest impropriety. And let's face it: a hypocritical sociopath like you with -- by your own admission -- a Maybach on the line is hardly in the position to provide an objective critique of their coverage.

 
At 12/14/11, 12:48 PM , Anonymous ken said...

ditto:

Ted whimpered: "But you weren't in the courtroom, and thus you don't have a f***in' clue!"

Sprocket, Denise Nix, CG, and Judge Pastor were all in the courtroom; by your metric, they all have one, and are all of the opinion that a third trial is in order. I was tainted by your out-of-court claims (which were often highly incriminating), and would recuse myself from jury service, but it is painfully apparent to me that there is more than enough evidence to warrant a trial on the merits.

Again: " The problem was, he somehow had missed the offer that Sarah's husband had put forth many months earlier to adopt Lauren thereby giving Cameron the opportunity to get out of child support by signing a piece of paper. Consequently, Hum's case makes no sense! If you had been in the courtroom, you would know this."

You told me this long before the trial. Cameron didn't take the offer, which may have been due to Patty's influence. As this fact can -- in proper context -- be interpreted in a variety of ways, it proves nothing of consequence. Hum's case makes perfect sense ... to those of us who don't have a Maybach on the line. Rather, it is your bald assertions which are fanciful at best, and risible at worst.

 
At 12/15/11, 2:15 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Again, from the Kook Kaldis Klan blog:

Ted: "KFI has many more listeners than the Daily Breeze has readers."
Which means that KFI gave it more exposure, but that is beside the point. Coverage in the Breeze was more comprehensive and more importantly, the coverage given by both outlets corroborated each other. The prosecution's case-in-chief (and in particular, that 9-1-1 call) was devastating. Geragos' playbook-of-guilt is one thing, but the playbook of how fathers protect their daughters was another. Real parents don't expose their children to such clear and mortal danger.

You may not have thought Cameron John Brown capable of such depravity, but the family of famed "BTK" serial killer Dennis Rader was just as shocked when he was captured. Cameron is the new B-T-K, with his own unique signature: Begat-Toss-Kill.

(Kaldis Rules, remember? "Accusations are dispositive evidence of guilt.")

Based on what I've seen, the press did a reasonably good job. The fact that he took Lauren up to an inherently dangerous place, coupled with the studied nonchalance, most certainly qualified as probable cause -- as evidenced by the indictment itself, the fact that two-thirds of the jurors voted for second-degree murder or higher, and the decision by Judge Pastor to hold Cam over for a third trial. The set of facts that would constitute reasonable doubt in my mind -- that Cam suffered from Asperger's Syndrome, and honestly didn't realize that what he did (in merely placing Lauren in such grave danger, which could constitute second-degree murder on its own, even if he didn't treat her like he treated my luggage) was wrong -- was never advanced by the defense.

You see, Ted, we have had the benefit of your telling us the defense's position. And while it may be a function of your staggering ineptitude and boundless hypocrisy, the rest of us can see why most jurors thought so little of your side's position.

 
At 12/16/11, 9:13 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Yeah, MOTS:

Ken: "the coverage given by both outlets corroborated each other."

Ted: "What dod you expect when both reporters sat side-by-side and compared notes? Oh, yeah, that's right, you don't know about this because you weren't there to see it. The REAL story here is that one side influenced the other."

You seem to have a limitless capacity for constructing fantastic conspiracies, Ted. Denise was on the case long before Shannon Farren showed up, and if anything -- especially if Farren is the bubble-headed bleach-blonde you allege -- she was the one doing the influencing. Remember that we also had Sprocket and CG on the case, as well as your compulsive input.

You admit that YOU tried to influence the reporters. Maybe if you didn't look like a walrus in heat and didn't sound like Fred Phelps on codeine, you might have had a little more success in that endeavour [sic]. Geragos looked like something the cat refused to drag in, whereas Hum looked like a Hollywood idol. YOU lost that battle. So friggin' what?!?

Nothing was reported that we didn't really expect. Your Preparation-H-Bomb stayed in Geragos' pants -- as expected. The prosecution's case went pretty much as advertised in the grand jury report. The reporters were about as moved by Geragos' defense as the jury was. John and Ken had far more influence on Farren's KFI reports than Hum could have had.

What mystified me was that Geragos didn't use his star power to better manage the press. It is the attorney's job to try to get control of the message, both in and out of the courtroom, and it is obvious that Geragos didn't feel the need to try. Why didn't he even call a press conference? That he didn't see a need is prima facie evidence that he wasn't discomfited by the press Cam got. There are just certain cases where the press is going to suck -- Cam is like Jerry Sandusky in that regard.

You tried to control the press yourself, and look at how badly that turned out. Loretta and CG won the day on the 'Net with their incisive reporting and commentary, and the #1 page on the case is courtesy of People You'll See In Hell. While most of the reporting is professional (see e.g., http://blogs.discovery.com/bizarre/2009/09/lauren-sarene-key.html ), even the pros have buried the hatchet in him: "Brown was tried three years ago, but a mistrial was declared after a jury deadlocked on the severity of the crime." http://www.smh.com.au/world/father-hurled-daughter-off-cliff-to-avoid-paying-child-support-court-20090728-dzj0.html 'Net reports tend to go something like this:

Cameron Brown is innocent until proven guilty but the allegations in this case are “unspeakable.” Ten jurors believed little Lauren Sarene Key’s 125-foot plunge to her death was caused by her father, Cameron Brown. But two juror’s didn’t. Brown will be tried again in October.

http://panachereport.com/channels/more%20short%20stories/Unspeakable.htm

There isn't a single positive report on Cam in the first 50 Google hits. Why haven't you tried to make a coherent argument for his innocence supported by trial transcripts? You lost the battle and continue to do so.

My only problem with this case is that it is taking ten years to prosecute it. Dude turned 50 in the stir. IMHO, Cam should be given a hall pass over the holidays ... but that must mean I'm crazy, right?

 
At 12/17/11, 12:25 PM , Anonymous ken said...

More from Ted Wars:

Ken: "Try as I might, I really can't understand you [Ted]."

Ted: "I'm inclined to suspect that that's exactly how the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board felt about you."

In an odd sense, you might even be right: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903).

This notion will mean nothing to you because it is beyond your comprehension, but men of integrity are--almost by definition--unreasonble men. The reasonable Colonist made peace with his British overlords ... but the unreasonable men who founded this great country could not. They asked:

"If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the Inhabitants of these Colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. ... .We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force.--The latter is our choice.--We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery."

But for these unreasonable men, we would still be a part of the British Commonwealth, and have the best cricket side in the world. Despots expect people to genuflect before them. I refused on principle.

Again, integrity and character are beyond your comprehension.

 
At 12/26/11, 12:09 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Ken - I saw in the news a few weeks ago (and thought of Ted) that Daimler is discontinuing the Maybach line. The CNN Money article contained this priceless bit:
"The Maybach epitaph will not be a not pretty one. It was a remarkably cynical effort by Daimler to use the halo of its Mercedes-Benz brand to justify prices of $350,000 to $1.4 million for an inferior automobile wrapped in a glitzy package. Maybach strived for a prestige that it tried to ground on price alone. The wealthy figured it out in a hurry and stayed away in droves. Appearances to the contrary sometimes notwithstanding, the top 0.0001% didn't accumulate all that money by being stupid."

So the smart money folks figured out what Ted never did, and this should not be at all surprising. I wonder what he'll buy NOW with all of his book/movie money? Maybe a Happy Meal?

 
At 12/31/11, 1:28 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

Happy New Year to all; it's already 2012 as I write this. More TedFun:

TeddiBeer whines amusingly: "Ken, I simply tire of you. What's the point of trying to inform you of anything? You already know everything."

I know my Bible, I know the law, and I know and embrace logic. I've asked you repeatedly for a rational and biblically-sound argument for your god's assent to Cam's incarceration, if he is not a psychotic child-murderer who deserves to be right where he is. And you invariably invoke the same comically lame avoidance technique, insisting upon blaming the messenger (me) for my refusal to acquiesce to such self-evident obfuscation.

When you do have an answer, you give it. For instance, I agree with the notion that if all a god has time for is fixing football games, he isn't much of a god, but you answered anyway. I threw those two comments out to establish that backdrop, undermining your declaration that you are "tired" of responding because you always do. You don't have an answer that works, and both of us know it. Your precious "Word of God" is clear and unequivocal: "And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily." Lk. 18:7-8(a).

Either your god is a liar or your brudder-in-law, a murderer. There is no third option. Sucks for you, but it is the bed you have made for yourself.

 
At 1/7/12, 7:37 AM , Anonymous ken said...

More of the same:

Again, Ted, you have just confessed that you are a cultist. If your holy book doesn't mean what it says and say what it means, there really isn't much point in having it. For instance, Charles Taze Russell asserted that to study the Bible apart from his inspired writings was to fall into darkness. Kingdom of the Cults, 2003 (Zacharias) edition at 38.

That's what our dispute has always been about: your respect for what you have admitted is my first-rate intellect, coupled with my refusal to have anything to do with your cult. Again, if you want to insist that you get super-sekrit "divine information" simply because you wear sacred undies, you're going to get a good laugh out of most orthodox Evangelical Christians -- not just me.

I don't regard the Bible as an intellectual treatise because there is little in it that would even begin to qualify. Intellectual brilliance is to be found in the Analects, The Art of War, and the Tao Te-Ching ... but the Bible routinely contradicts itself because the individual writings were cobbled together, and often ineptly. I use the rule that the Bible should be used to interpret the Bible because Christians insist; otherwise, the god of the New Testament is no more the same as YHWH as the Mormons' Heavenly Father is the god of the New Testament.

Historically, ihe prime Christian selling point has always been an appeal to the intellect, as opposed to Shirley MacLaine-style experientialism. Your reading of Second Corinthians is an admission that yours is indistinguishable from her prattlings regarding Ramtha. Having some exposure to New Age religion, I can say from personal experience that the born-again experience is indistinguishable from Eastern-style "revelation." If all you're after is to enjoy the experience of self-induced emotional ecstasy, you are better off running marathons or chanting in front of a candle. (I would include Tantric sex, but that requires that you have a partner.)

I've always embraced the Lewis/Greenleaf intellectual test because it is the one paradigm by which Christianity could potentially be distinguished from other religions. You claim a special experiential knowledge. So does Shirley MacLaine. Shirley has 'scoreboard'; you do not. A rational man would try her prescription before yours, would he not?

Greenleaf, John Warwick Montgomery, and the CRI crowd invite us to test the evidences for Christian claims because, as they admit, faith without facts is folly. (Think Heaven's Gate, if you question this.) Professor Greenleaf counsels us how to proceed: as opposing counsel in a trial. I have done this, refusing to accept unproven claims. Problem is, without the claims, the case for Christianity must be dismissed on a directed verdict. You concede this, opting for the (Harold) Lindsell (editor emeritus of Christianity Today) Gambit: "I do not throw out reason but I do way that whatever anyone says that contradicts what the Bible teaches is in error." In short, to embrace reason, he throws it out. At least, Martin Luther treats Reason as the whore of Babylon....

When you remove that argument (as you have), opting for revelation over reason -- reason does not require revelation -- your brand of Christianity must fail. After all, your Christianity has not helped Cam Brown, unless you presume that he is guilty of murdering young Lauren in a fit of pique. The Bible tells us that the god of the Bible is a god of justice, but your god is either dispensing justice (by incarcerating Cam) or is incapable of so doing. There is no third answer. But you have gone the route of the cultist, claiming that what the Bible says in black-and-white really isn't what it means, invoking the argument that the general ought to control the specific ... ignoring the fact that if the general rule controlled, there would ge no need for the specific. Bottom line, Ted, you are as irrational as a JW.

 
At 1/8/12, 9:23 AM , Anonymous ken said...

More comedy from the KKK Blog:

Ted plaintively bleated: "So what will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final Judgement?"

That's the only comeback you have, Ted? Lots of appropriate answers to that insufferably stupid question (e.g., "Your middlemen were malicious assholes like Ted, and You refused to deal direct."). But look at the bright side: at least, I don't have to tell him that I threw my illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff to save on child-support and/or spite my ex, or that I married a spinster because I couldn't afford my lifestyle. Not that many style points for that one.

Here's another delightfully incisive take:

"The Judeo-Christian God is an epic troll. If you grew up Catholic, Protestant or at all Christian, then most of these iterations of this meme will hit home hard. These are all questions we've asked ourselves, our pastors and our parents that can be answered with the fact that the Judeo-Christian God, as a character, is a mean, troll-like, hypocritical butt-face. Enjoy the best of the "Advice God" meme, just in time for the holiday season."

http://www.ranker.com/list/god-is-an-epic-troll-the-best-of-the-advice-god-meme/robert-wabash

My fave: "Accidentally make humans smart. They stop believing in me."

"I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD." Either your god is a compulsive liar, or he is dead.

 
At 1/17/12, 5:56 AM , Anonymous ken said...

There is no limit to KKK chutzpah:

Ted: "You know squat about this case"

It is a simple and relatively straightforward murder trial, wherein the State alleges -- and not without cause -- that the defendant Cameron John Brown caused the death of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren, acting either with malice aforethought or with a malignant heart. To date, sixteen of twenty-four jurors have agreed with the State, and all twenty-four have concluded that Brown's conduct was felonious.

In the face of a hung jury, it is common for California prosecutors to re-try the case not once, but twice, if necessary -- especially, if they come close to attaining a murder conviction (which they did in this case). The length of this process is disturbing from a human rights standpoint (which you don't seem to believe in), but apparently passes constitutional muster (no one has even bothered to file a federal habeas action).

You have posed a number of unchained conspiracy theories in an attempt to assign an impure motive to the prosecution team (e.g., Craig Hum was running for office; the city fathers of RPV were attempting to evade civil liability) and to date, these theories have been debunked quite easily. Indeed, Cam Brown abandoned his civil damage claim with prejudice, thus conclusively disproving your "RPV city fathers' undue influence" theory. Furthermore, as RPV participates in a Lloyd's-like insurance pool, even a huge award would not have had a material effect upon its bottom line. Your Preparation-H Bomb was a dud.

You allege that the cops did a lousy job in their investigation ... forgetting that this is more the norm than the exception. You object that the cops proceeded under a presumption of guilt, but forget that when given the raw facts, virtually everyone else on the planet (including you, to be honest) would do precisely the same thing. You claim that certain facts are dispositive, but not a single juror has agreed to date.

I have taken no position on Brown's legal innocence or guilt, leaving that determination to the jurors who have been charged with that task. It is fair to say that, based on the facts at hand, it is more likely than not that Brown did commit at least second-degree murder, but we expect the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, following Blackstone's calculus.

To claim that I "know squat" about this case is a lie, and you know it.

It is incumbent upon Cameron's counsel to set the jurors straight, and they have had more than ample opportunity to do so. Surely, you are not going to tell me that Team Geragos left anything in the locker room, as to do so would be to openly admit that they committed malpractice. You have had an equal opportunity to make your case, but have failed quite miserably, even comically attempting to hitch your wagon onto Richard Fine's star. Whereas Fine's case is a lot like mine (in the sense that judges have taken indecent liberties with the law for their own personal benefit), the judiciary doesn't have a dog in the hunt in the case of The People v. Cameron John Brown. Even you have admitted that Judge Pastor is one of the best jurists in the L.A. system, and regardless of what you thought of Judge Arnold, it is a huge stretch to suggest that Pastor has acted irresponsibly.

If you are not going to use this forum to set the record straight, exactly why have you put it up? I didn't force you to engage the public, like you did to me on USENET. The simple fact is that you are incapable of persuading anyone with your unchained drivel. One could even be persuaded that English wasn't your first language ("The Defense Present It's Case") and ultimately, you lost the P.R. war to a pretty lady from Cleveland [an intentional dig at Ted, who well and truly HATES Loretta].

 
At 1/17/12, 11:23 AM , Blogger loretta said...

We assume the H-Bomb was the hoped impeachment of Dr. Hayes's testimony, based on his academic issues. Unfortunately, that sorta fizzled.

Does Ted really hate me that much? I would think I was rather inconsequential in light of the big picture.

 
At 1/18/12, 9:47 AM , Anonymous ken said...

This isn't long for the KKK blob:

Ken asks: "Why WAS Lauren scared on that fateful day?"

Ted bleats: "She WASN'T! As was CLEARLY established by eyewitness testimony."

Uh, I wasn't there, Ted; I express no personal opinion whatsoever. The only opinion that mattered was that of the jury, and I do know (from the generally reliable and independent Sprocket, corroborated by Denise Nix) that credible testimony was given to that effect. The jury's decision necessarily passes by the conclusion that the teacher's testimony was found credible. I trust the jury's decision.

Why should any uncommitted reader accept your opinion of the facts, Ted? After all, you have stated that you have a Maybach riding on it, and we are talking about your sister and her hubby. I don't see any court transcripts on your site supporting your position. If there IS a case to be made for Cameron's innocence, you have yet to present it. [and]

Ted: " Have you ever been with Cameron when he was together with Lauren? No. But I have."

So, why weren't you called to testify? Could it be this?

“Theodore A. Kaldis” wrote:
>I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.

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

What “cute” hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn’t even f*** her with your d***.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys
in. Why shouldn’t they let me in? At least I’m not from a completely
alien culture.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

Darling, you’re just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what’ll loosen you up.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
–Theodore A. Kaldis

What other words are there? “Gook”. “Slope”. “Slant-eye”. The list
continues further downhill from here.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

BTW, you’re not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
–Theodore A. Kaldis

I do not use the word “nigger”, nor do I use the word “coon”
–Theodore A. Kaldis

At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don’t know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
“nigger rich”.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

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

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

That’s easy. This is yet another example of feminine “logic” (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
–Theodore A. Kaldis

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

The Dick-suckin’ Chicks are toast.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

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

 
At 1/18/12, 9:50 AM , Anonymous ken said...

The truth hurts the Tedyear Blimp:

TeddieBeer belched: " Have you ever been with Cameron when he was together with Lauren? No. But I have. The long and short of it is that you don't know what you're talking about."

I only know what was testified to, and that is all that matters in the case. You weren't there on that fateful morning, and cannot testify at first-hand. The teacher could ... and did. She testified, based on her personal observations, as to Lauren's mental state. And the jurors believed her -- quite possibly, because there was no Theodore A. Kaldis available to offer countervailing testimony.

As I have told you on many occasions, I try to keep my personal views out of my analysis.

If what you say is true, you would have been a valuable witness, but for your unfathomable stupidity. Geragos kept you off the stand for a reason: You opened your big mouth wide enough to swallow a dozen Long Dong Silvers. Kent sent some of your greatest hits over to Craig Hum, who would have sliced, diced, and fricasseed you on the stand. That you were shopping a screen treatment, and had a Maybach riding on the outcome, would have made your testimony appear false and contrived. Bottom line, you HURT Cam by whingeing on the Net. [and]

Ted bleats: "But I'm sure that you would prefer to believe the LIES of a mendacious prosecutor."

I've grown accustomed to the well-established mendacity of one sociopath named Theodore A. Kaldis. The "Craig Hum is running for office" lie. The "The RPV city fathers are trying to avoid a lawsuit" lie. Even Orly Taitz would thumb her nose at your conspiracy theories....

Why is it that the only "mendacious" prosecutor on the planet is the one prosecuting your precious Cameron, and the only corrupt judges on the planet preside over his trial? First, you whined about Judge Arnold ... well, now, he's off the case. Then, you praised the gay liberal Judge Pastor, and haven't been able to point to one single decision he made during the trial that was manifestly improper. And when he opined that a third trial should be held, he suddenly adopted the visage of Ol' Scratch himself!

And of course, Ed Nottingham walks on water ... even though he resigned when confronted by proof of corruption, and indisputably defied US Supreme Court precedent in my case.

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, thy name is Kaldis!

 
At 1/19/12, 6:24 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Probably should preserve this, too:

Ted inquired: " Or is there nothing curious here?"

Not enough evidence to tell. I presume, Worldly Ted, that you have spent more than a few minutes at a Vegas craps table; though the odds of throwing a seven are one-in-six, people can hold the dice for thirty minutes. We don't know where the incidents occurred, and what facts were ascertained by investigators. For instance, it really wouldn't surprise anyone if the Hayes/Hernandez incident was pursuant to a suicide pact, or that there was something going on in the Mills/Chamberlain incident. But remember, it is not like these disparate incidents all happened at the same spot. Some locations are more likely to suggest homicide (such as Inspiration Point and a freakin' four-year-old). Other times, you have witnesses who are in no position to save the victim and no motive for murder; if a church group is on an outing and Crazy Megan gets too close to the cliff edge, it's probably an accident.

A statistical argument is only as strong as the data you use, and you have made no effort that I can see to discard the outliers. For instance, if Heidi Chamberlain left a suicide note in her diary, it's not hard to classify their death as a suicide. Furthermore, you may well be cherry-picking the data: since 1993, there have been four deaths with undetermined causes and one classified as an accident. Why should the cut-off be March of 1996?

And of course, there is the pervasive problem of investigator sloth. In most instances, it is immaterial as to whether a hiking death was an accident or a suicide, so the LAPD might be less-inclined to invest the resources. If there was a change in policy in March of 1996, you would be able to ascertain this through a California FOIA request.

I see you jumping to conclusions without bothering to ascertain the relevant facts, a mistake you have made on numerous occasions (e.g., Craig Hum for DA, the alleged RPV insurance dodge). You're just sloppy, Ted.

If there is any merit to your theory, it will be up to you to ferret it out, as no PD will have the kind of resources to follow up. This will require a FOIA request, examination of the case files in every instance -- you will have to determine if other cases are comparables, and discard those that are not -- and quite possibly, independent investigation on your part. What you have here is a whole pot of nothing, I'm afraid: a possible line of inquiry, but nothing more.

[continued] Sometimes, the age of the victim is relevant. Teenagers like Kamil S. are more likely to commit suicide; for all we know, he may have been gay, and tormented by the Ted Kaldises in his life, The causes of death in the two incidents after Lauren's demise were not determined; why weren't they deemed suicides, if there are no accidents in that jurisdiction? The unavoidable fact is that four-year-old girls aren't exactly prime candidates for suicide; in Lauren's case, outside factors pointed to murder, as contrasted to the Yeargen case. The investigators had enough evidence to meet the threshold for prosecution, and they did.

"This fact proves X in the mind of Ted Kaldis, who has a Maybach riding on the outcome" is not an argument that persuades the uncommitted. I don't take a position on whether Cam is guilty, as defined by California law; that is the province of a jury. But neither can I come to the conclusion that Cam Brown is stone-cold innocent, based upon the poorly-researched and easily refuted "jiu-jitsu facts" you present. I do conclude (albeit provisionally) that it is more likely than not that Lauren was a murder victim -- but that is not a ground for criminal liability, nor is my opinion to that effect likely to carry any particular weight.

 
At 1/19/12, 6:26 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Ken: Ted, there is a certain elegance in the fact that you may well be the proximate cause of Cam's ongoing incarceration. You have done wonders to poison the public perception of Cam, giving the PYSIH folks a motherlode of ammunition. And your well-established mendacity and bigotry have rendered you unfit to appear as a witness on Cam's behalf. The 6-6 outcome in the last trial and the universal condemnation precipitated by your incompetent P.R. gave Hum cover to do it all again, even in L.A.'s current financial distress. We can look at you, and know that you have done God's will in this case.

TeddiBeer belched: "What nonsense!"

Geragos didn't put you on the stand and in itself, that speaks volumes. Everyone knows that a mother would lie to protect her son; Judge Irving Younger (sort-of the Holy Ghost of Evidence law) once impeached a defense witness in a murder trial by asking one question: "You're his mother, aren't you?" All things being equal, a rational advocate would want to put the brother-in-law on instead. But Geragos didn't.

Did Geragos make a tactical mistake, or the judgment that you would be more of a liability than an asset? You keep telling me what a great lawyer he was....

As for your losing the P.R. war, Google proves that beyond cavil. I don't believe that there is a single non-Kaldis site out there that seriously questions Cam's guilt. The flaws in your site have been pointed out to you repeatedly, and your Preparation-H-Bomb-class evidence was detonated without incident. Your conspiracy theories have been based on easily-refuted evidence. Basically, you've been caught crying wolf one too many times.

You can continue to live in that bubble of yours, which discordant facts cannot penetrate. It is a prison of your own construction.

 
At 1/20/12, 2:09 PM , Anonymous ken said...

More inanity from TeddiBeer:

Ken sez: "And what you haven't answered here, and are no closer to finding than you were when you first alleged it, is why public officials would benefit from concluding that a particular death was a suicide. It wasn't the liability risk, because RPV is part of a Lloyd's-style insurance pool, making their exposure immaterial."

Ted belched: "They were trying to get $12 million in grants of state and federal funds to buy out 5 large parcels of undeveloped land from developers and turn it into parkland. Inspiration Point was in one of the parcels. If the land is perceived to be dangerous, then the grants might be denied. And no Lloyd's pool is going to make up for $12 million in POTENTIAL grants that were ultimately denied."

Cui bono, Ted? Your analysis betrays a spectacular ignorance of municipal law.


And Ted advances yet another senseless conspiracy theory. You know what they say about marriage: "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?" Intergovernmental transfers of property aren't like commercial sales; no one really benefits. If you're a resident of RPV, you are also a resident of L.A. County; do you really care who owns the land?

As near as I can determine from an memo generated in late 2010 by City Manager Carolyn Lehr (http://MeetingDate-2010-10-19/RPVCCA_SR_2010_10_19_10_Letter_Regarding_Abalone_Cove_Nature_Grant_App.pdf, Los Angeles County originally owned the land in question; they acquired it (presumptively from private hands), partially with funds provided by the California Land and Conservation Fund. Importantly, the grant carried with it a stipulation that the land be preserved for outdoor recreation in perpetuity. The land was later transferred to RPV, but the reservation came with the transfer.

I don't see any $12 million price tag, any developers with a dog in the hunt, or any material condition that would have killed the transfer that -- contrary to your claims -- did in fact take place. It WAS parkland, Ted. It couldn't be developed, as there is no way the CA Coastal Commission would ever let it: "The park contains a State Ecological Preserve and taking of protected animals and marine life is prohibited." http://www.palosverdeschamber.com/Site/Parks.aspx

The idea of adding a nature center is of fairly recent origin; it is senseless to contend that this was an overriding consideration back in 1996. Moreover, the money is irrelevant, as all that happened was a transfer from LA County to RPV. They can't sell or use the land in any way. It was transferred in its natural state because they intended to keep it in its natural state.

There is nothing in the known facts that would suggest that either the LASD or RPV officials would care as to whether a death on Inspiration Point was a suicide, an accident, or murder. No one with the ability to do so seems to have anything at stake sufficient to put pressure on the LASD, prosecutors, the coroner, or two judges.

We've been over this ground before. Where's the beef, Ted?

 
At 1/22/12, 3:23 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Poooooor TeddieBeer. He's been horse-whipped so badly that he has to sue for mercy:

"Ken, don't you have anything better to do? You post more than I have time to respond to. Or even read all of it.

The fact that you see such a need to post so voluminously indicates to me that I am scoring points against you."

My response: Compared to your obsessive and misguided efforts to defame and discredit me, it is a drop in the bucket, really. Are you prepared to admit that your herculean efforts were a product of your unbridled malice? Your own logic, used against you yet again.

Discrediting your crackpot conspiracy theories takes me minutes, as opposed to hours. You have heard of multi-tasking, haven't you? And if you read THAT slowly, get thee to Evelyn Wood. No wonder you are such a mental midget.

It is painfully evident that Los Angeles authorities are prosecuting Cam Brown because they believe he murdered Lauren. No one in the system had any apparent incentive to put their fingers on the scales of justice. Granted, it was a tough case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt -- it should be easy to prove to civil tolerances -- but Hum is giving it the old college try, and you have to give him props for that. I'd estimate that, against a PD, the chance of a conviction on Murder Two is at least 50-50.

Amusingly, I'm the only guy around who can even see a path toward an acquittal. Everyone else has had the rope out ... and if our situations were reversed, you'd be the one leading the lynch mob.

Cut the bullshit, Ted. What I'm doing here is more accurately described as "piling on."

 
At 1/31/12, 7:15 PM , Anonymous ken said...

More fun from the KKK blog:

Ken sez: "My position is based on knowledge of evidence and law,"

Ted: "A "knowledge" that seems to somehow escape the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. What has NOT escaped the 10th Circuit, however, is the observation that, under Rooker-Feldman, a Federal District Court CANNOT place a plaintiff in the position he occupied prior to a state court judgment. Sux 4 U!"

Sorry, Ted, but your ignorance of Rooker-Feldman is so grotesquely large, it couldn't even fit in YOUR trousers. By definition, a facial challenge to a state statute or regulation is outside of its ambit, as the Justices stated explicitly in Feldman. But of course, you have never been one to let facts or law get in the way of your immaculate misconceptions.

What was the "state court judgment," Ted? When Colorado stautory law requires judges to recuse themselves (it did in my case), any "decision" rendered is non coram judice (literally, not before a judge). It is not voidable, but utterly void.

Simply put, Ted, you are too blindingly stupid to grasp the law. Not just ignorant, but simply stupid. (Ignorance, by stark contrast, is curable.) Justice Black describes you perfectly: "The layman's Constitutional view is that what he likes is Constitutional and that which he doesn't like is un-Constitutional." I don't find Hurtado unsound because it aids my position; I find it so for a reason, which I can articlulate effectively. By stark contrast, all of your "reasoning," such as it is, starts from the conclusion you want and works back to your premises. When it comes to constitutional law, you embarrass yourself every time you type.

The one key concept you have been too pig-headed to grasp is that law is about process -- NOT outcomes. I honestly don't care whether Cam Brown is innocent or guilty, but I do care that he receive a fair trial. You, otoh, decide whether a person is guilty or innocent, granting process to those you like, while denying it to those you do not.

Let's face it: objectively speaking, Brown is not a defendant who naturally engenders much sympathy. As Wayne put it, he looks like the kind of guy you see coming into the Seven-Eleven at 3AM. Even under the most charitable reading of the facts, his gross negligence is the proximate cause of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter's death. Looking at Patty, it is apparent that he married her for her money. Why should I care whether a repulsive slug like that be given the benefit of the rule of law, if you wouldn't extend that courtesy to me?

 
At 1/31/12, 7:30 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Ted: "Sux 4 U!"

Funny that you should use that phrase. After all, in a matter of mere hours, Cameron John Brown will be celebrating his 3,000th day of incarceration in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the world-renowned Los Angeles County Jail. Surf is up on the North Shore, with 25-footers on offer, but Brown is still enjoying the hospitality of the people of Los Angeles ... with little hope of a change in scenery. And the best part is that it is constitutional!!! Sing along:

"Welcome to the Hotel California
Such a lovely place
Such a lovely face
They livin' it up at the hotel california
What a nice surprise, bring your alibis...

"Relax," said the night man,
We are programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like,
But you can never leave!"

 
At 2/2/12, 8:10 AM , Anonymous ken said...

On the 3,000th day of the Camster's residence in his cage, more fun with dickhead Ted:

Ted: " I expect you to continue using Cameron's case as a club, aganist me."

No, I use it to illustrate your hypocrisy, illogic, and sociopathic tendencies. If we judged Cam Brown by the standards you use to judge me, he would be hanging by a tree right now.

Ted: "When I say that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board must have been on to something -- or even when I urge you to seek professional help -- that this is simply a personal attack"

It is, and EVERYBODY knows it. First and foremost, you know less about psychology than you do about the law. Second, you forget that I had myself examined by a board-certified psychiatrist before I ever embarked on this process; if I ever get into a courtroom, she will testify that, based on standard tests, the only thing unusual about me is that I have an I.Q. off the charts (and I have several others on offer who will testify as to how the Colorado bar uses the fitness test as a bludgeon against malcontents). Third, you have been repeatedly challenged to present objective evidence to support your claim ... and at the end of the day, it all boils down to my refusal to suck your god's diseased donkey-dick. Finally, you have been diagnosed by a mental-health professional as suffering a serious pathology, but you haven't gotten help for your condition. Why don't YOU practice what you preach, Ted?

My "very obvious problem" is the same one that you claim Cam has: "Il est dangereux d’avoir raison dans des choses où des hommes accrédités ont tort." Besides, as you know well, on the Internet, the short definition of insanity is "he doesn't agree with me." Moreover, if you are of the opinion that it is insane to refuse to live under the absolute domination of others and to fight that domination with guns if necessary, you are declaring every one of the Founding Fathers certifiable. Moreover, if you truly believe that, you would not be defending Cameron Brown but rather, relentlessly counsel him to plead out in exchange for a sentence of time served. Today, he matches the great Roberto Clemente (3,000) hits and in a week, he will match Al Kaline. By the time of the next hearing, he passes Boggs, Palmeiro, and Brock, and even under the most optimistic time line, he'll pass Cal Ripken before the start of his third trial. Why shouldn't HE practice what you preach, Ted?

 
At 2/6/12, 9:12 AM , Anonymous ken said...

more archives:

Ted: "No, Ken. I'd be too ashamed to introduce a WHACK-JOB to him"

....bleats LEGENDARY Net-KOOOOOK Theodore A. Kaldis. The Net is littered with examples of why you are in the Whack-Jobs Hall of Fame:

“Theodore A. Kaldis” wrote:

>I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.

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

What “cute” hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are dogs. I wouldn’t even f*** her with your d***.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys in. Why shouldn’t they let me in? At least I’m not from a completely alien culture.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

Darling, you’re just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly what’ll loosen you up.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and no bloody swarthy wogs!
–Theodore A. Kaldis

What other words are there? “Gook”. “Slope”. “Slant-eye”. The list continues further downhill from here.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

BTW, you’re not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
–Theodore A. Kaldis

I do not use the word “nigger”, nor do I use the word “coon”
–Theodore A. Kaldis

At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million blacks in the U.S. (and I don’t know what the exact figure is, but I would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be “nigger rich”.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

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

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

That’s easy. This is yet another example of feminine “logic” (truly an oxymoron if ever there was one).
–Theodore A. Kaldis

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

The Dick-suckin’ Chicks are toast.
–Theodore A. Kaldis

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

You defame me as a dodge, because you know that I have a mountain of evidence in re: your own record of churlishness, and you don't want to have to answer for it. We understand each other perfectly.

 
At 2/12/12, 11:53 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know why I am compelled to post this but here is goes: The night before Lauren died I had a very disturbing dream, I live 15 Minutes from where she died. In my dream a little girl, same age and coloring, was running towards a cliff and her father, about 6 ft brown hair and slim built, was chasing her yelling for her to stop. Then she turned to look at him kept running and didn't realize she was at the cliff and fell off. I even heard the thump in my dream. Then I woke up. That morning I told the dream to my boyfriend and that evening the news was about Lauren. Strange don't you think. Maybe he never pleaded out, which would of let him out earlier, because he really is innocent.

I know for myself if I were accused of something like that and I never did it I wouldn't plead out no matter what.

Just wanted to share my dream, or should I say nightmare that I had.

No Name

 
At 2/24/12, 10:35 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey homies. Casey Serin here yet againz. What's upz babyz. I luvz me some this forum. Shit and fuck babez.

Island2012.com.

Cum chek its out.

youza.

 
At 7/30/12, 10:16 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Did the Teddious one finally shut down the pro-Cam website? As I am here, there's nothing wrong with Blogger.

 
At 9/27/12, 9:02 AM , Anonymous Carly Quiram said...

Happy belated Birthday Lauren<3 we were friends in pre-school and even though it was a long time ago I will never forget what a sweet little girl you were.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home