August 29, 1996
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer born
April, 1997
Sarah Key-Marer files for child support in Orange County, California
May, 1998
Cameron John Brown requests paternity test
February 11, 1999
Cameron John Brown ordered to pay child support
July 22, 1999
Cameron John Brown files for a reduction in child support and requests 32% (approx 117 days) visitation and joint legal custody of Lauren.
Cameron John Brown has still never met Lauren Key-Marer
November 1999-May 2000:
November, 1999
Supervised visitation begins. One hour, then one and a half hours, then two hours, etc.
Lauren is 3 years, 3 months old.
December, 1999
Cameron throws Lauren in the swimming pool at his apartment building during a supervised visitation. Sarah tells him Lauren cannot swim.
February, 2000
Sarah discusses adoption by husband Greg with Cameron and, according to her testimony, he immediately agrees. She tells him to discuss with Patty (his fiance, then wife) and let her know in a week.
Unsupervised visits begin; not overnight.
March, 2000
Judge denies CB’s reduction of child support and joint legal custody.
Sometime after March, 2000, Cameron files another request for reduction of child support and claims he has 50% custody. He actually has her less than 2 ½ days per month.
June 2000-November 8, 2000:
(5 months, 8 days)
June, 2000
Unsupervised overnight visits begin.
Every other week Tuesday 4:30pm to Wednesday 4:30pm in addition to every other Wednesday 12:30pm to 7pm. (48 + 15=63 Hrs/Mo)
October 31-November 01, 2000
Halloween overnight visit.
Cameron picks Lauren up and tells her to get in the front seat of the car. She doesn’t want to ride in the front and eventually gets in the back seat. As they are pulling away in the car, Cameron’s wife, Patty, leaned out the window and shouted to Sarah, “What else is it you do when you’re not smacking your kid around” and chuckled and drove away.
The next day when Cameron returned Lauren, he put her suitcase on the side of the car in the road and told her to come back and get it. He said he wasn’t going to do it for her. He told her twice.
He wasn’t parked next to the curb so it was almost in the middle of the road. Lauren bolted towards the road and Sarah screamed for her to stop and she ran back crying. Cameron drove away laughing.
Seven days later Lauren Sarene Key-Marer was dead.
November 8, 2000
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer dies
Lauren was 4 years, 3 months old.
399 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 399 of 399When on earth is the next trial? Anyone know?
No clue. His next pre-trial is 1/26.
As expected, Ted "poofed" my reply on the K00K blog. Sad that when I DEFEND Cameron, weak as any defense can be, Ted feels he must remove it. I guess we can presume Ted does NOT agree that if there is any evidence to the claims made by Cam, said claims MUST be investigated and those responsible MUST be held accountable.
My most recent post to the K00K blog (which I expect to get poofed:
When is the re-trial, and is there anything we can do to expedite it? This is taking way too long....
Many agree that it's taking far too long for this matter to conclude. Sadly, there isn't anything any of us can really do. We can gripe about the length of time, but that's it.
No word on today's pre-trial hearing yet. I hope they get it over with soon for Sarah's sake.
Next court date 2/27.
ARG! I want this matter concluded, as I expect many others do.
Looks like the KKK is coming out of hibernation....
Reprint of my post on the KKK:
So, when's the damn trial? And why are y'all finally coming out of your cave now? Loretta and CG will be pleased....
"Money trumps everything."
By that metric, Cam must be guilty, as otherwise, he should have won. He had daddy's money behind him, and that bought him the empty Armani suit. It's not like he was saddled with a PD....
Cam absolutely deserves a fair and speed[ier] trial. He surely deserves to be treated humanely during his incarceration. And I will be the first to say that I'm unhappy with how the proceedings have dragged on interminably. This should not happen. But that having been said, I don't see how the missing rock proves his innocence, or that Deputy Brothers' faulty recollection, absent compelling proof of a much larger scheme, constitutes a rights violation under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
At least in the Tenth Circuit, the "gold standard" is Robinson v. Maruffi, 895 F.2d 649 (10th Cir. 1990). You would have to prove what you should have been able to prove at the first trial (and your failure to do so appears damning), and if you don't have any new evidence, you've got no shot. Conjecture and innuendo is not going to get you there, especially when you consider how everybody tends to circle the wagons.
When you guys can come up with an outrage more pronounced than a judge deciding a case in which she is a defendant, wake me up.
The other blog is coming alive....
K: compelling proof of a much larger scheme, constitutes a rights violation under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
KKK: It is there. This isn't the proper venue to introduce it. I'm sure you can appreciate that.
Actually, I don't. As a general rule, a litigant has an affirmative obligation to make reasonable efforts to mitigate damages, and if what you claim is true, the proper forum for introduction of your claims should have been the defense in the murder trial. While there are cases where that can't happen (e.g., Robinson v. Maruffi, where the scheme was not readily apparent at trial, and the first grand jury returned a no-bill), you have been complaining of this alleged conspiracy since before there was a trial.
I sat in a hearing for four hours yesterday listening to people telling their stories of judicial abuse; if what you claim is true, I'd like nothing better than for Cam to get some measure of justice, even though our judicial system is even more decrepit than you can possibly comprehend. But based on what you have been complaining of here, this blog can and will be used against you at trial on a civil rights claim under Section 1983. Just is.
More fun from the KKK blog:
KKK: You misunderstand. Money trumps everything, therefore, in a case that LA County has a significant financial interest, it's why Cam was arrested on the basis of false evidence; it's why Leslie and Brothers lied on the witness stand; it's why some witnesses were manipulated to lie under oath and others were intimidated not to testify, to mention just a few of the acts of misconduct committed in this case. There is much, much more.
I have practically begged you guys to help me to understand what this purported sub rosa "state interest" is, and I continue to remain mystified. Every conspiracy theory you espouse is insubstantial, insofar as the prosecution of Cam would have had no effect; the theory that they prosecuted to avoid an action in tort bordered on the absurd, insofar as it appeared highly unlikely on grounds of the statute of limitations issue (California opened the door later, but no state lawyer would have anticipated that) and every party that mattered is covered by insurance (or the damages would have been a mere blip on the entity's budget). No one in the DA's office had a horse in the race, which is just how it should be.
As for "false evidence," this isn't an episode of CSI. Police incompetence is staggering, and a lot of good cases are lost because they are bungled so badly. Every case you see is going to have holes in it. What's more, the government is going to interpret facts in ways you don't like, and it is their right under our system to do so. The quantum of facts necessary to bring a case and to win it are quite different. I don't see anything other than garden-variety bungling and the typical prosecutorial spin here. It would serve my provincial interests to be able to see things your way, but I'm not about to go there without a minimum ration of facts. Larry Glasser and I might not agree on much, but we actually agree here, which ought to at least tell Ted something.
And as far as this conspiracy goes, I'd like you guys to get on one horse and ride it. Ted has said that "everyone was doing their job" on USENET (I'm pretty sure I still have those posts archived), because it didn't serve his purpose at that time to allege a conspiracy. But whenever it serves his purposes, everyone this side of Vladimir Putin is involved. Kindly make up your minds, and back it up with evidence. What you have here is essentially nothing.
I find it of interest that the reason for Cam's having been arrested and tried changes as new conspiracy theories get shot down.
First it was Hum's political aspirations. Sadly, he wasn't running for office.
There was the conservancy funding. The problem is that said funding was secured BEFORE Cameron was even arrested. Oops.
Now it's because so much money has been invested in the case. The problem is that there was always and easy out.
At any point the DA's office could have simply said something like, "We started our investigation believing this to be a murder case. We now believe it was an accident. And we feel no amount of money should be spared to ensure that a guilty person is punished AND/OR ensure an innocent man remains free."
Now Ted is claiming Dept. Brothers committed perjury (yet is unable to offer any motive or REAL evidence). My advice is the same as it's always been. Take the evidence to the Attorney General's office as far as possible.
This will NEVER happen, of course. Since doing so would mean an investigation, and the investigation would PROVE there was NO perjury. This would destroy yet another part of Ted's trial delusion.
On an unrelated topic:
Aruba was great, as always.
I don't know why this didn't post on the KKK blog, but Ted has effectively confessed Cam's guilt on his website.
Ted [from the FCB website]: (The other was Danny Smith, who took early retirement under, what appear to me to be, curious circumstances several years ago, and who is now a private investigator in Fruitland, Idaho.)
Why is it, Ted, that you tar and feather everyone associated with the case from the State's perspective with often baseless innuendo? Most of these guys take early retirement and become part-time Sam Spades. All the PIs I know were former beat cops; they can't really do the job after 50 -- especially if they have mid-sections like yours (invariably, on account of too many free donuts :) ).
Ted [FCB site]:This area is far too dangerous to stand upon. If you slip and fall, you will likely slide over the edge of the cliff—and there is nothing to stop your fall—and immediate demise. I did not dare venture out to this area—and neither did Jeff Leslie, as he testifies on page 199 of his Grand Jury testimony. And yet, he expects us to believe that, not only is this the spot where Cameron Brown was standing (which claim is just simply incredible on its face), but that he also threw his daughter off the cliff from here, and yet did not go over the side himself. It’s simply unbelievable.
So, exactly when did you take these pictures, Ted? Late 2006? Early 2007? First, the ground is going to be most stable in early November, as it is the historical end of the dry season. Second, six years' worth of erosion is going to change the site materially. Third and most importantly, your reasonable admission that that is the closest that a reasonable person would go to the edge of the cliff (one I agree with, based on my long experience as a hiker) is a tacit confession of guilt, as the requisite mental state for second-degree murder could readily be inferred by a reasonable juror from the fact that Cam let Lauren get materially closer. Your page actually validates the conclusion of guilt, as opposed to debunking it: even if you don't believe their theory (we'll probably never know what happened in the jury room, but if Geragos was successful in conveying his points, they might not have), it still adds up to murder two.
Your photo-journalism doesn't reasonably prove what you want it to prove. What I see there is that, while your outline could be seen by someone who was specifically looking for it who was at the right place and time, the chance of anyone seeing the incident on a weekday in November are slim and none. But more importantly, the requisite mental state for second-degree murder could be inferred from Cam's version of events, those damning photos, and your commentary, as any reasonable person would see that "Dead Man's Cliff was no place to play." On the face of it, Cam was extremely negligent (and correct me if I am wrong here, but I seem to recall that California recognizes depraved heart murder), and that is enough for murder two or at least, manslaughter. Over-selling the dangers here is tantamount to a confession of murder.
That website of yours is extremely damning, Ted. Geragos told you to shut up for a reason.
Wow. I honestly can't believe that Geragos cut the KKK loose again. A letter to John and Ken (hopefully, they will provide us with intel on the ground):
You're not going to believe this one, guys!
Brown's own brother-in-law -- his "frumpy" wife's twin -- effectively confesses Brown's guilt (on second-degree murder charges, at least) here: http://freecambrown.org/Leslie/index.html. Specifically, he states:
This area is far too dangerous to stand upon. If you slip and fall, you will likely slide over the edge of the cliff—and there is nothing to stop your fall—and immediate demise. I did not dare venture out to this area—and neither did Jeff Leslie, as he testifies on page 199 of his Grand Jury testimony. And yet, he expects us to believe that, not only is this the spot where Cameron Brown was standing (which claim is just simply incredible on its face), but that he also threw his daughter off the cliff from here, and yet did not go over the side himself. It’s simply unbelievable.
As for the blue “X,” the spot where I was standing, this was about as far out as I could go on Inspiration Point, on the east side of the point (where Lauren fell from), and maintain safe footing. Here is a view looking down the cliff, down into the inlet below, from that spot:
If it is so unwise to be out on the edge of that cliff that even a grown man (albeit a VERY large one) wouldn't go out there on a bet, what sentient being would let a four-year-old even get close? One with an abandoned and malignant heart, who is trying to kill the kid and make it look like an "accident," of course. I can't believe that even Geragos would let this loose cannon out to play before the retrial (which is coming up soon, or so I am told; the next hearing is reportedly on the 27th).
The malice which distinguishes murder from manslaughter is an elusive concept which does not lend itself to inclusive or comprehensive definition. (People v. Gorshen (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 716, 730, fn. 11 [336 P.2d 492], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Wetmore (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 318, 324 [149 Cal. Rptr. 265, 583 P.2d 1308].) The Penal Code, which provides that such malice, "may be express or implied," goes on to state simply that "[it] is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart." (Pen. Code, § 188.)
People v. Coad, 181 Cal. App. 3d 1094, 1116-17, 226 Cal. Rptr. 386 (Cal.App.Dist.1 May 21, 1986) (emphasis added).
You just can't make this stuff up....
Simply and truly unbelievable.
Ted [from FCB]: But does Jeff Leslie's testimony constitute perjury? In my opinion, it absolutely does, but there are those who have advised me that the issue is not so clear-cut, and that it may not rise to the level of perjury. But nevertheless, his testimony has led to the indictment of a man whom I know to be innocent of what he is charged with, of murder. Are there any who cannot say that such testimony is, at the very least, grossly irresponsible?
Hell, I can tell that it isn't from the topo map: 125 ft. less 115 ft. is 10 ft., and while you might be visible from the blue "X," it is clear [proofreading error edited out] that he would have been out of sight at the red "X" from most probable vantage points. Given the vagaries of erosion, we don't know whether the conditions were substantially the same six years on, or when the original topo map you relied on was drawn. I don't and can't know what the true facts were in November of 2000, and I rather suspect that Leslie did not rappel down to the exact site where Cam allegedly stood, so it is quite possible that he didn't have precise first-hand knowledge.
My conclusion is that he probably related the true facts as he reasonably believed them to exist at that time. Cam surely would not have been visible from the north or the east on your map, even though he might well have been from PP. Imperfect policework? Certainly. Perjury? You have a long way to go to get there, and your friends are right. Grossly irresponsible? I wouldn't begin to go that far.
Ted, I mean this sincerely: You are doing more to hurt Cam's case than help.
This one won't last long on the KKK Blog....
Ted, I give up. You make it difficult (if not utterly impossible) for me to have even the slightest shred of sympathy for Cam. When your opponents suffer even the most egregious abuses our legal system can dispense, you dance a jig of glee (Caltech keeps records) ... but when even the slightest foul (they are often strictly imaginary, engendered by your ignorance of the law) is called against your precious Ca-Moron, it is invariably the most perfidious outrage since the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti. Differing weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last, has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed--first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. They were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked his way toward the edges of the flock we discovered that we were on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong."
--Gerry Spence
Instead of coming to my aid, you did everything in your power to torment me. But now, as the wolf comes for you and yours, you bleat for help. Why should I -- or anyone else! -- answer the call? You obviously treated me the way you wanted to be treated, Biblically speaking, and now, we have the opportunity to treat you in that way. Why should we make an exception to the rule you have established?
Cam Brown is quite obviously a stray. It is difficult for anyone to have sympathy for a man who is indisputably responsible for the death of his daughter. And on the face of it, the actions he took appear to have been intended to put her in harm's way -- so much so as to permit the conclusion that he murdered precious Lauren. Why should anyone risk anything to come to his aid? He is, on the face of it, a piece of human filth.
Unlike yours, my standard is a clear and consistent one. When you can come up with anything that even comes close to the spectacle of a judge deciding a case in which she is the defendant and be able to document it by clear and convincing evidence (in my case, they openly confessed the fact), wake me up. At this point, all you're doing is whingeing, and everything you have put on your website is either unsupported speculation and/or ridiculous flights of fancy and rampant paranoia. Unlike you, I will render such aid and support as I am able to give, but only when it is shown that an actual injury has occurred -- and it is impossible at this point for me to conclude that anything is amiss in Cam's case on your representations alone. Evidence, people. Evidence.
While you are in court on the 27th supporting an apparent baby-killer, I will be in court supporting someone infinitely more worthy of my support.
As expected, Ted played censor. What a shock. :)
Next court date: 4-04-07
It's another [BLEEP]ing pre-trial hearing!
Why is Cameron continuing to waive his right to a speedy trial? Presuming Ted is telling the truth, he is continuing to waive it at each hearing.
ARG!!!!!
I've been banned, again, from the K00K blog.
http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/images/banned.jpg
What did I do to warrant banishment this time? I keep pointing out that Cameron is sitting in jail because he WANTS to. He refuses to rescind his speedy trial waiver.
http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/images/banned2.jpg
I'm honestly amazed that Ted didn't delete the post when he banned me. He removed the one where I pointed out that I, and others, have asked for exculpatory evidence to be presented for review, but no one has been able to offer any.
I expect they had some people stumble upon the site and were thinking that his not getting a speedy trial was a great miscarriage of justice. Then I show up pointing out that Cameron refuses to rescind the waiver. Suddenly people have no sympathy for his having to sit in jail.
I posted this at the other blog; it will be interesting to see whether they delete it.
So tell me again: Why did you ban Kent? Is it because he raises issues you can't respond to?
He raises a valid point, and as this saga continues interminably, I become less and less enamored with the putative legal skills of one Mark Geragos. Specifically, there is just no excuse for letting Cam rot in jail like this without at least trying to secure his interim release, and the blood needs to be laid squarely at his feet. IOW, Ann Coulter has a point, too.
As I understood it, the retrial was originally to start in November, and Geragos should have taken immediate steps to secure that date. Since they had a supposedly firm date for the trial, filing a speedy trial motion would have put pressure on the authorities to deliver or at least, given him an essential bargaining chip, with which to secure his release on bail. Compelling equitable arguments could have been made -- if this were happening in a third-world country, we'd be madder than a march hare over this; Los Angeles is not, at least to my knowledge, a third-world country (though it is slowly becoming part of Mexico, as part of the Bush Administration's grand plan), and we can no longer brook such unwarranted delays. Geragos could have gently reminded the State that it has broken its promises in the past, and that Cam has spent over three years in jail for a crime he did not commit (that has yet to be determined, of course, but he can say that up to and until the moment he is convicted). All that such a motion would have managed is to ensure that he is treated like a human being.
If the Court can't deliver on its promise, fine. All we ask is that it release him on bail until the trial, so that he can surf again, walk in the woods again, spend an evening with his wife again. Let him see blue. See green. Grant the man some modicum of decency. He deserves that much. We can never give an innocent man his life back, so we should at least minimize the damage.
What is Geragos thinking here?
Suspicion confirmed. Here's the exchange from the other blog:
K: So tell me again: Why did you ban Kent?
Ted: He never has anything meaningful to contribute. His comments are almost invariably puerile.
[K:] Whereas, your comments seldom even rise to the level of being "puerile." Really, Ted! Kent has always brought game, which isn't something I could say about you. What you lack in skill, sound argument, and persuasiveness, you often make up for in sheer malice.
Kent continues to raise a compelling question -- one that hasn't been adequately explained away. Why hasn't Cam rescinded his speedy trial waiver? If I were Geragos, I would have filed one just to provide leverage. Hell, if I had any really good arguments for acquittal, I might have even filed an amicus recommending bail. Why Geragos just sits there is beyond me.
[I've got the sneaking suspicion this one won't last long.]
K: I can't argue with anything Hirsch says, because I've been saying the same things for ten years. And of course, Ted has been constantly berating me for it.
Ted: Not quite. Rather, I have been challenging you for filing baseless
Do you even have the first clue as to what the word "baseless" means in a legal context? Ted, you are an ignoramus when it comes to law -- an untutored rube. Virtually everything you think you "know" about the law is wrong. Any outcome you like is "legal," and any outcome you dislike is the spawn of Satan. When it's your baby-killin' brudder-in-law, even the slightest deviation from proper procedure is the greatest evil since Sacco and Vanzetti ... but when it happens to me, it's life in the big city. Differing weights and measures -- doesn't your god detest them both?
Let me put it this way: How would you feel if Danny Smith were seated on Cam's jury? Would it be a violation of his constitutional rights? What if there was a statute explicitly stating that anyone who participated in the prosecution phase of the litigation could not sit on the jury? Are you going to tell not only me but Case Insider that that is somehow perfectly acceptable? A few simple yes or no answers will do here, Ted (though you are free to elaborate).
and doomed-to-fail legal action against the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board (et. al.)
Yet, I didn't see you throwing a hissy-fit when Geragos filed that LEGALLY FRIVOLOUS 995 motion on Cam's behalf. That motion was frivolous (because the court couldn't grant relief by definition), baseless, pointless -- and downright comical. What John and Ken said about the vaunted Geragos defense, I would say about that motion: he basically "mailed it in." Really, Ted, it was that bad.
If the lawsuit was doomed to fail on account of a prediction of judicial corruption, then we should not shed a tear for Cam Brown, even if perchance he is innocent. If I don't deserve protection from judicial misconduct, then neither does he. It's just life in the big city, right, Ted?
-- yet all the while vindicating their conclusions with your actions.
"DisagreeingwithTeditis" is not a symptom of mental illness; it is usually a contraindication. I have, by stark contrast, had your actions and writings analyzed by a licensed Ph.D.psychologist, who credibly observed that you are a stalker (quite possibly, a dangerous one), and in need of serious therapy. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of a professional (and you would know about her credentials, if you weren't such an incompetent stalker).
And this is not a "personal attack", but rather an honest expression of my views.
Let's see, Ted: You are mentally ill (delusional, a stalker), apparently suffering from the residual effects of consuming psychoactive drugs (LSD), a self-loathing closeted homosexual (who is just too damn ugly to attract another man), willfully ignorant on an astonishing array of subjects (and most importantly, criminal and civil rights law), more bigoted than Archie Bunker (I think you may have left the Brits alone, but that's about it), and have a serious problem with impulse control. I could add more, but I trust that I have made my point. And this is not a "personal attack" but rather, an honest expression of my views, so it is perfectly acceptable in this forum.
And yes, based on what I know, I think Cam probably did murder Lauren -- the story of how he got her up there is really too bizarre to be reasonably believed. My mind is still open to evidence to the contrary, and I have no interest in the outcome. My only interest is in seeing that he gets a fair trial, as that is everyone's due. And even if he did kill her, I would have no problem with an acquittal -- as long as our system works properly, I will happily put my faith in it. And this is not a "personal attack" but rather, an honest expression of my views, so it is perfectly acceptable in this forum.
Oh, and did I mention that you are blindingly stupid? Again, my views, which I submit are more than sustained by the record. :)
Ted blustered: (In the meanwhile, the post where this came from is about to get POOFED (because you engage in ad hom).
Translated, like all bullies, Ted can't take what he dishes out. How about answering the question, Ted? [I repost these things at the other blog to let people show how childish you are.]
K: I can't argue with anything Hirsch says, because I've been saying the same things for ten years. And of course, Ted has been constantly berating me for it.
Ted: Not quite. Rather, I have been challenging you for filing baseless
Do you even have the first clue as to what the word "baseless" means in a legal context? Ted, you are an ignoramus when it comes to law -- an untutored rube. Virtually everything you think you "know" about the law is wrong. Any outcome you like is "legal," and any outcome you dislike is the spawn of Satan. When it's your baby-killin' brudder-in-law, even the slightest deviation from proper procedure is the greatest evil since Sacco and Vanzetti ... but when it happens to me, it's life in the big city. Differing weights and measures -- doesn't your god detest them both?
Let me put it this way: How would you feel if Danny Smith were seated on Cam's jury? Would it be a violation of his constitutional rights? What if there was a statute explicitly stating that anyone who participated in the prosecution phase of the litigation could not sit on the jury? Are you going to tell not only me but Case Insider that that is somehow perfectly acceptable? A few simple yes or no answers will do here, Ted (though you are free to elaborate).
Ted blustered: (In the meanwhile, the post where this came from is about to get POOFED (because you engage in ad hom).
But yet, you are free to engage in ad hominem attacks on me, such as the following:
Ted: -- yet all the while vindicating their conclusions with your actions.
K: "DisagreeingwithTeditis" is not a symptom of mental illness; it is usually a contraindication. I have, by stark contrast, had your actions and writings analyzed by a licensed Ph.D.psychologist, who credibly observed that you are a stalker (quite possibly, a dangerous one), and in need of serious therapy. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of a professional (and you would know about her credentials, if you weren't such an incompetent stalker).
Ted: And this is not a "personal attack", but rather an honest expression of my views.
K: Let's see, Ted: You are mentally ill (delusional, a stalker), apparently suffering from the residual effects of consuming psychoactive drugs (LSD), a self-loathing closeted homosexual (who is just too damn ugly to attract another man), willfully ignorant on an astonishing array of subjects (and most importantly, criminal and civil rights law), more bigoted than Archie Bunker (I think you may have left the Brits alone, but that's about it), and have a serious problem with impulse control. I could add more, but I trust that I have made my point. And this is not a "personal attack" but rather, an honest expression of my views, so it is perfectly acceptable in this forum.
And yes, based on what I know, I think Cam probably did murder Lauren -- the story of how he got her up there is really too bizarre to be reasonably believed. My mind is still open to evidence to the contrary, and I have no interest in the outcome. My only interest is in seeing that he gets a fair trial, as that is everyone's due. And even if he did kill her, I would have no problem with an acquittal -- as long as our system works properly, I will happily put my faith in it. And this is not a "personal attack" but rather, an honest expression of my views, so it is perfectly acceptable in this forum.
Oh, and did I mention that you are blindingly stupid? Again, my views, which I submit are more than sustained by the record. :)
What's good for the goose is good for the gooser, Ted. If you want to continue lying about me, remember that I can continue telling the truth about you. And the truth will live on at the other blog, even if CI refuses to do anything to put an end to your childishness.
Ted's explanation for why Cam hasn't rescinded the waiver:
K: Why hasn't Cam rescinded his speedy trial waiver?
Ted: You have a law degree, use your imagination.
About the only possibility that makes sense is a torrid affair with Bubba....
Your job to explain the unexplainable, Ted.
I don't know if this one is even going to make it to the other blog....
Ken, this is NOT Usenet. Please stop bringing Usenet posts to this site. You are trying to deflect from the issues that have been raised by belittling Ted. I am truly sorry I tried to carry on a civil conversation with you because it is evident that you are not interested in being civil.
Spare me the feigned outrage, CI. You claimed that Kent was a boor who added no value to the forum; the USENET posts presented demonstrate that in an unmoderated forum, he consistently raises issues and makes pointed observations that are both high-value and inimical to your cause. By way of example, both Kent and practicing NYC prosecutor Larry Glasser have keenly observed that Cam's current predicament is in large part his fault, as Cam knowingly continues to waive his speedy trial rights. These are not the tactics of an "obviously innocent" man -- as a general rule, delay benefits the defense. Geragos has made the call (and, I would submit, the right one, from a tactical perspective) that Cam will be very lucky to walk out of that jail at all, which is the most candid assessment of the case against him we have had. This fact is of great importance to this discussion.
Another piece of information gleaned on USENET vindicated what I have been saying about Ted's public statements being deleterious to Cam's case: At least one of the people who endorsed Cam has changed his mind, and may now testify for the prosecution. Yet, Ted refuses to remove his endorsement from the website! Apart from that being discourteous, it shows that Ted is willing to lie and defraud on Cam's behalf, obliterating whatever credibility he might have had.
Kent has also taken sharp issue with Ted's missing (Preparation-)H-bomb, which should have been detonated in the first trial. While it is arguably imprudent to withhold evidence proving exoneration from the prosecutor (as Larry points out, the rational prosecutors will give up if you can prove the client's innocence), it is absolutely unethical to refuse to present it at trial. If Geragos left that on the table, he should be disbarred -- and if Cam consented, he deserves to be precisely where he is right now. (The logical conclusion is that the Preparation-H-bomb doesn't exist, and that there will be no surprises in the second trial, as you would expect.) Those are not good points for Team Cam.
Ted has hung himself more times than we can count on this case. One of the classics was when he claimed that Dr. Hayes was a hired gun who got something like three times the 'going rate' to drum up a bogus case against Cam. At trial, we learned that Ted lied (which comes as precisely no surprise to anyone who knows him), and that Cam's expert was actually paid more than Hayes to testify (by Ted's logic, he was paid that premium to lie for Cam -- and apparently did).
Kent is quite wrong in one material respect -- one I very much want to discuss -- but I won't bring it up on this forum unless he is able to discuss the matter freely.
If "civility" is what you want, this can be most easily achieved by laying down the law as against Ted, as he is the primary instigator of ad hominem attacks. Conversely, if your goal is to avoid bringing up uncomfortable truths about this case while continuing in ersatz form to champion his cause, then I suppose that the Pravda way is the only one you have at your disposal. As I said, I abhor viewpoint-based censorship.
If you choose to censor me on viewpoint grounds, you do -- there is little I can do about it. But spare us all the deception, CI. If you look hard enough for grounds for the censorship of speech on what are really viewpoint-based grounds, you will find it. Case in point: Selma, Alabama.
K: Why hasn't Cam rescinded his speedy trial waiver?
Ted: You have a law degree, use your imagination.
There is only one legal reason I can think of.
Team Cam is hoping against hope that witnesses will become unavailable (they die, or move and can't be located) and/or that witnesses forget various details.
There is no legal advantage to waiting, especially since there's that H-Bomb class evidence Ted told us exists. And Ted wouldn't lie, would he?
Ken wrote, in part:
Kent has also taken sharp issue with Ted's missing (Preparation-)H-bomb, which should have been detonated in the first trial.
Ted lied. There is no other possibility. The H-bomb class evidence that proves Cameron is innocent (not merely raises reasonable doubt) never existed outside the mind of Ted.
While it is arguably imprudent to withhold evidence proving exoneration from the prosecutor (as Larry points out, the rational prosecutors will give up if you can prove the client's innocence), it is absolutely unethical to refuse to present it at trial. If Geragos left that on the table, he should be disbarred -- and if Cam consented, he deserves to be precisely where he is right now.
No one on trial for first degree murder is going to agree to withholding evidence that PROVES innocence.
(The logical conclusion is that the Preparation-H-bomb doesn't exist, and that there will be no surprises in the second trial, as you would expect.) Those are not good points for Team Cam.
If anyone from Team Cameron claims there is going to be a surprise, it's a strong indication that there won't be.
Ken wrote, in part:
Kent is quite wrong in one material respect -- one I very much want to discuss -- but I won't bring it up on this forum unless he is able to discuss the matter freely.
What did I get wrong? While I have no problem believing I could get something wrong (it's happened before, and I dare say it will happen again), I'm wondering what it is.
If you wish, we can discus it here since there's no way they'll allow me and my impossible to answer (honestly anyway) questions on the K00K blog.
If you don't want to discus it here, at least E-mail me and let me know. I'm very curious.
Posted on the KKK Blog:
Ted wrote: [POOFED again, Ken. Please behave. --TK]
Ted also wrote (on Jun. 12, 2004): "F*** the "dictionary" definition!"
Lewis Carroll wrote (published 1871):
`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
I have no idea what the word "behave" means, when spoken or written by you. You bear a stunning resemblance to old Humpty Dumpty, Ted.
Not that it matters overmuch. Given that you have behaved so badly when you controlled the printing press, you don't have the moral standing to complain that the press from Australia to Zimbabwe have painted Cameron John Brown as the guy who threw his four-year-old daughter off a seacliff to her death. You have no standing to complain when the Daily Breeze, John and Ken, or the Los Angeles Times paint him as a despicable waste of oxygen. You have no standing to complain when Denise Nix gets friendly with the prosecution. They buy ink by the truck, and they can spin this story any way they want.
If you want to continue to make this blog a truth-free zone, you are at liberty to do so. But don't expect the fact that 99% of the people who hear the basic facts of this story are going to fairly conclude that Cam Brown is a baby-killer to change as a result of your antics. Rather, you are confirming that belief with your heavy-handed censorship, as you obviously have something to hide.
Another one that isn't going to be welcome at the KKK Blog:
Ken Smith wrote: Why hasn't Cam rescinded his speedy trial waiver?
Ted: You have a law degree, use your imagination.
The only logical explanation is that even Geragos thinks that Cam is guilty or at least, is likely to be convicted -- and is thus dutifully invoking the guilty defendant's gambit -- delay, delay, delay. The L.A. authorities have exactly no problem with it, and Geragos is just hoping that Sarah will die from breast cancer.
Losing 10-2 in the first trial is a harbinger of things to come, as if Geragos held back significant and what is asserted here as dispositive evidence, he committed disbarrable malpractice. Therefore, there is zero chance of Ted's (Preparation-)H-bomb going off this summer.
Kent: What did I get wrong? While I have no problem believing I could get something wrong (it's happened before, and I dare say it will happen again), I'm wondering what it is.
That it would be of any intrinsic value to complain to the authorities about prosecutorial, witness, or judicial misconduct. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing: it just makes the pig mad. See my efforts to do the same in Colorado at http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/jdcken.html.
California's system is better, but not much.
While we're at this, I'd like an answer to why you refuse to remove the letter of support from the person who has withdrawn it, even though his identity is known to the defense, Loretta, Kent, and at one time me (I've forgotten the name).
You have listed a supporter who no longer supports Cam's cause and has asked to be removed from the list of supporters. You admitted that. That's immoral. And it calls into question the entire supporter list, and for that matter anything you say. It doesn't *MATTER* why he wants to be removed. If you were stupid enough to say he's going to be a witness, so removing his name would identify him, that's your problem.
After all, if you're Kaldishonest about one thing, you could be Kaldishonest about a lot more.
Ted wrote: I'm not dishonest about anything. I'm forthright about everything, including the fact that one of the individuals who provided HIS OWN letter of support is now saying something else -- EVEN THOUGH CAMERON HAS BEEN INCARCERATED -- AND THUS ESSENTIALLY INCOMMUNICADO -- IN THE MEANWHILE.
So what?
Why doesn't your website say he's no longer a supporter?
It makes absolutely no difference WHY he wants to be taken off the list or what you think of his reason. Maybe he doesn't want his name associated with YOU. Remove his name. Would you want to keep a reference on your resume who doesn't want you using his name and is likely to, at a minimum, damn you with faint praise?
Ted, based only on your words posted on USENET, you have convinced a lot of people that Cam is stone cold guilty. Your kind of "support" could get Mother Theresa nailed to a cross. [Since I can't quote the person who originally said this due to local censorship rules, I can make those comments my own.]
More from the KKK blog:
I honestly don't understand why this post was censored:
[blockquote] On the Christian proof of Cam's guilt:
In the book, Science Speaks, mathematician and scientist, Peter Stoner, applies the rules of probability to these prophecies. The chances of just eight of these three-hundred prophecies being fulfilled are one in 10 to the 17th power - that's 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000!
By the same logic, the probability of Lauren getting to IP by chance and falling off "by accident" is so low that we can safely conclude that Cam murdered her.
Think of it as another practical application of Pascal's Wager, Ted. Don't tell me that you are abandoning Christianity because you don't subscribe to this reasoning....[/blockquote]
Was it just because you don't have a "good" answer ... which means one that can preserve this as a proof for Christianity whilst avoiding its application to Cam? What is intrinsically wrong with the 'mountain of coincidences' argument -- the one that leads virtually everyone inexorably to Cam's likely guilt? Or is it that it just wouldn't do to have a rational argument for Cam's guilt survive on this blog, so the reader might (gasp!) reach the same rational conclusion?
Ted wrote: But your posts will be POOFED if you engage in ad hom attacks or otherwise fail to behave with civility.
Dictionary.com defines "civility" as: 1. courtesy; politeness.
Using that generally accepted definition (as opposed to your own Humpty-Dumpty version), kindly explain how the following post indicates that I am not "behav[ing] with civility"(or in the alternative, how my rational speculation as to Geragos' motivation (also echoed by Larry, and you know now we NEVER seem to agree) qualifies as an ad hominem argument:
Ken Smith wrote: Why hasn't Cam rescinded his speedy trial waiver?
Ted: You have a law degree, use your imagination.
Ken: The only logical explanation is that even Geragos thinks that Cam is guilty or at least, is likely to be convicted -- and is thus dutifully invoking the guilty defendant's gambit -- delay, delay, delay. The L.A. authorities have exactly no problem with it, and Geragos is just hoping that Sarah will die from breast cancer.
Losing 10-2 in the first trial is a harbinger of things to come, as if Geragos held back significant and what is asserted here as dispositive evidence, he committed disbarrable malpractice. Therefore, there is zero chance of Ted's (Preparation-)H-bomb going off this summer.
There is not a single, solitary colorably "discourteous" word in it.
But it does raise questions as to your credibility -- which compels you to place your fingers -- and for that matter, your entire posterior -- on the scale of intellectual honesty. Censorship under the cloak of fraudulent artifice is still viewpoint-based censorship, Ted. And the odor of your actions is thus unmistakable.
Again to preserve what is almost certainly to be poofed by Ted:
Ken Smith wrote: Finally, a simple question for everyone: How would you feel if Danny Smith were seated on Cam's jury?
Danny Smith might as well be sitting, not in the jury box, but in the Judge's chair, in the person of Judge Arnold.
Thanks for dodging the question. My question to you is whether, in your opinion, such a scenario would meet with constitutional muster, and if not, why not. Do I have to pose it sixteen times in different iterations before you finally provide an honest answer?
Judge Arnold is a former cop, and later prosecutor. In my view, he still has a "cop mindset". In an article by Denise Nix (more so a paean rather than news) published in the Torrance Daily Breeze on 29 Jan., 2007, Judge Arnold is quoted as saying:
"I think people are generally good, but some people are not, and those who are not are the people that come in here."
A relatively fair generalization, with which you have concurred lustily in the past. Conviction rates are upward of 95% in most criminal courts (Larry bragged of a 98% conviction rate, if memory serves). I think Larry, Greta sans Substance, and Nancy sans Grace would say the same thing, and to be perfectly honest, you would probably make the same generalization. (I'm more of the Gerry Spence mindset, but that is one of our many honorable disagreements.)
I don't see how that is any different from your generalization that dot-heads are all dogs, when I have provided a link to photos of a female Indian movie star (Aishwarya Rai) that no sane man would kick out of bed for eating crackers. Accordingly, I don't see how that is colorable evidence of an impermissible bias on his account -- at least, if we apply Kaldis Rules[tm] to the analysis.
But you are still dancing around the obvious here -- albeit with all the deftness of Chevy Chase in character. My question to you still stands, and rephrased to account for the above: If it is unjust for Cam to stand trial in front of a judge who has a 'cop mentality' but no horse in the case, how much more unjust would it have been for a prosecutor like Danny Smith to have presided over a bench trial (where he gets to be judge and jury) in the case of People v. Brown?
In other words, in Judge Arnold's view, if someone appears before him, that person must therefore be guilty. And his attitude towards Cameron seems to me to confirm such a mindset. And this is justice?
In this discussion, I'm not the slightest bit concerned about justice per se. The proper question, Ted, is whether the practices in question are "constitutional." Where do we draw the line -- not just for your precious Cam, but for everyone -- and why? Do we only allow former Black Panthers and Hell's Angels to sit on a bench? What about the level of independence between the trier of fact and the trier of law? I am attempting to get you to think in terms of a coherent and comprehensive model of jurisprudence -- applicable not just to your friends and family, but to even your most implacable enemies.
I just don't understand why I can't get straight and candid answers from you, Ted.
Ted wrote: But it was also sophistry, and thus deflects attention from the fundamental issues that we should be concentrating on.
Dictionary.com defines sophistry as "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning." That would describe about 95% of your best arguments; most of the rest never rise to the level of sophistry. Again, I challenge you to find anything in the following post that even comes within sight of the harbor of sophistry, and explain why you believe this to be the case:
[quoted post starts here] While we're at this, I'd like an answer to why you refuse to remove the letter of support from the person who has withdrawn it, even though his identity is known to the defense, Loretta, Kent, and at one time me (I've forgotten the name).
You have listed a supporter who no longer supports Cam's cause and has asked to be removed from the list of supporters. You admitted that. That's immoral. And it calls into question the entire supporter list, and for that matter anything you say. It doesn't *MATTER* why he wants to be removed. If you were stupid enough to say he's going to be a witness, so removing his name would identify him, that's your problem.
After all, if you're Kaldishonest about one thing, you could be Kaldishonest about a lot more.
Ted wrote: I'm not dishonest about anything. I'm forthright about everything, including the fact that one of the individuals who provided HIS OWN letter of support is now saying something else -- EVEN THOUGH CAMERON HAS BEEN INCARCERATED -- AND THUS ESSENTIALLY INCOMMUNICADO -- IN THE MEANWHILE.
So what?
Why doesn't your website say he's no longer a supporter?
It makes absolutely no difference WHY he wants to be taken off the list or what you think of his reason. Maybe he doesn't want his name associated with YOU. Remove his name. Would you want to keep a reference on your resume who doesn't want you using his name and is likely to, at a minimum, damn you with faint praise?
Ted, based only on your words posted on USENET, you have convinced a lot of people that Cam is stone cold guilty. Your kind of "support" could get Mother Theresa nailed to a cross. [Since I can't quote the person who originally said this due to local censorship rules, I have to make those comments my own.] [end of quoted post]
How is it even colorably sophistic to challenge your practice of fraudulently presenting a reference that has been withdrawn by the author? If the shoe was on the other foot, I know quite well that I would never hear the end of it from you....
I would just like a credible explanation as to how and why, under any objective and ascertainable definition of "civility," "ad hominem argument," and/or "sophistry," a post like this (challenging your facially apparent ethical lapses) is out of bounds.
More fun from the KKK Blog -- now, it's because the evil Darth Arnold is just looking at Cam funny:
K: I don't see how that is colorable evidence of an impermissible bias on his account
A: Because the law says that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but in Judge Arnold's mind a defendant is guilty by virtue of the fact that he is in his courtroom. Judge Arnold makes that opinion obvious with his body language, the way he looks at defendants, the tone in his voice when he talks to them, thus causing prejudice in the jury.
So, why hasn't Geragos fixed the problem? Is it because he is merely incompetent, or because he thinks you should all have your heads examined?
What I find remarkable about this is that, when Cam's tail is on the line, your perception amounts to a manifestly unconstitutional bias but yet, when a prosecutor in my bar admission proceeding also served as a judge and juror, Ted found my civil rights complaint "baseless." This gross hypocrisy on Ted's part thereby raises an all-important question, which no one else seems to want to address:
Where do we draw the line, and why? My primary interest is in fixing the system, and in so doing, I have to be able to propose a viable alternative. Judges are human, and are going to bring their life experiences into the courtroom. So are jurors. Voir dire is supposed to rid the system of bad jurors; the defendant can get rid of a bad judge through a peremptory challenge under California law (this is far superior than procedural remedies in other states!). Your bitching, moaning, and carping about Judge Arnold is as facile as your whining about Cam's protracted stay in the Hotel California -- because it is entirely within Mark Geragos' power to remedy.
[Quote from other site] While the California Legislature loosened the requirements for seeking peremptory disqualification in 1982, it retained the requirement that the challenge be filed in a "timely" manner. Exactly what constitutes a timely peremptory disqualification motion is not always easy to discern, however. This is so because while--as a general rule--a Sec. 170.6 challenge is permitted at any time before the commencement of a trial or hearing on a substantive matter, that general rule is subject to three exceptions--namely the "10 day/5 day" rule, the "master calendar" rule, and the "all purpose assignment" rule. Thus, in California, before it can be determined whether a Sec. 170.6 challenge was made in a timely fashion, it must first be determined whether any of these exceptions to the general rule apply.
This seemingly facile determination has been the fount of more than a little controversy. Indeed, it is probably no exaggeration to say that, since Sec. 170.6 was amended in 1982, California courts have devoted more time and energy to analyzing questions of whether peremptory challenges have been lodged in a timely fashion than they have to any other issue pertaining to the general subject of judicial disqualification.
Section Sec. 170.6 may be invoked in either a civil or criminal action. There is, however, an inherent problem in applying Sec. 170.6 to criminal proceedings because of the difficulty in determining the point at which there is a known trial judge. In fact, California appellate courts are not even in agreement as to whether or not an assignment to a department is an assignment to a known judge.
While Sec. 170.6 theoretically does not entitle a litigant to select the judge whom he wishes to appear before--but only to disqualify a judge whom he genuinely believes to be biased,--a party who moves for disqualification under Sec. 170.6 need not provide the court with a factual basis for its belief that the judge is biased.
In fact, where it does--and where the application is not clearly denominated as one seeking peremptory disqualification under that provision--the court may properly conclude that the motion is one seeking disqualification for cause pursuant to C.C.P. Sec. 170.3 subd. (c), rather than a peremptory challenge under Sec. 170.6.
Since Sec. 170.6 provides for judicial disqualification without any proof of actual bias, once a Sec. 170.6 motion has been filed--together with a declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement under oath indicating that the judge is so biased that the moving party or her attorney believes she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing in the matter--the challenged judge ordinarily has no choice but to recuse himself forthwith [http://www.cce-mcle.com/tests/ss6005b.htm].
[Oops! Mark did it again....]
Can I have just a little bit of truth out of you guys?
While I only spent one whole day in the courtroom during closing arguments, at no time did I see Judge Arnold "looking funny" at the defendant.
I couldn't see Cam from where I sat, but I sure could see the judge.
I changed the settings to show date and time on the comments.
CG
Whenever Ted is utterly obliterated on the merits, he always plays the Colorado bar card.
Ted blathered: Ken, the Colorado Bar admission process is what it is. Perhaps it isn't perfect, but it's their bat and their ball, and they're going to make the rules.
[IRONY ALERT!!!]
Ted, the Los Angeles County Court trial process is what it is. Perhaps it isn't perfect, but it's their bat and their ball, and they're going to make the rules. And under "their rules," you get to spend a small fortune in a desperate defense which is bound to fail, anyway. Craig Hum gets to withhold evidence, Jeff Leslie can say whatever he wants to say, and Judge Arnold can suppress evidence whenever he feels like it. The deputies get to wipe their asses with and then urinate on Cammie's toothbrush, and the press from Australia to Zimbabwe gets to paint him as a baby-killer, a waste of oxygen, and he loses four years of his life regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent.
Why fight it, Ted? Why even bother complaining about it? If you don't care about the rights of others, why should anyone give a damn about you and yours? CI should just close up shop, and go back to hosting garden parties.
Why should Patty fight it, Ted? If she had had enough sense to listen to you, she wouldn't have a lien on her house the size of the national debt. And even if perchance he does get out after the fourth mistrial -- we know you don't have your Preparation-H-bomb, because Geragos was bound to play it in the last trial, so don't try snowing people -- I give that marriage about six months top. Better that she go back onto the market before she has to hunt for 'fresh meat' at the nursing home.
Why should Cam fight it, Ted? Truth be told, he's probably a lot happier with Bubba in the joint. He will never have to face Bobby Brown again (Whitney should be so lucky). He won't be able to go back to his baggage-handler gig, he has a hole in his resume that will never heal, and he has a Jethro Bodine education to fall back on.
When you take the Bobby Knight "might as well lie back and enjoy it" tack, it invariably applies to the Cameron Browns of the world. Just live with the system, even though it runs over your sister in the process. No worries. While I'm quaffing a nice cold amber down at the country club, Cam is brushing his teeth with something that has a nice amber color. Learn the lesson of the Scooter, and take the fall for your betters, Ted.
Since these posts will be suddenly made to disappear on the KKK blog:
Again, whenever Ted is obliterated in our debates, he invariably plays the Colorado bar card.
Ted continued to blather: The only recourse you had when they ruled against you was an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And, yes, I know what the odds are of them granting you cert. But trying to circumvent the process by suing the Bar Examiners (to say nothing of the Colorado Supreme Court) in a lower court has even greater odds against you -- and makes you look like a nut job.
Do you mean to tell me that the rule of law and due process of law are only for baby-killers?
If Danny Smith were in that jury box, you would be screaming like a banshee, because {"no man should be judge in his own cause." That equitable principle goes back at least to Sir Edward Coke, Ted. (Look him up on Wikipedia, if you don't know who he is.) But when a prosecutor in my case is made not only judge but jury, this causes you no discomfiture. And when a judge decides her own case, you find this perfectly acceptable. But yet, when Judge Arnold looks at Cam funny (in your subjective evaluation; CG saw nothing out of order) you throw a hissy-fit, and complain that it is the greatest affront to justice since Sacco and Vanzetti?!?
Puh-leeeeeze, Ted. Your astounding girth is exceeded only by your boundless hypocrisy.
For some reason, this isn't posting Over There:
Ted: Boggles the mind. Are you really that blind? Kent's sister was born in the US and presumably shares the same to US born parents that Kent has. Kent was no more born in Poland than I was. Proof has been offered, but as usual you have ignored it.
Knowing what an Inspector Clousseau-class sleuth you are, Ted, I have learned over the years to dismiss pretty much every "proof" you have on offer. I have never checked out Kent's claim, but I note that he writes pretty decent Polish -- relatively difficult, for someone with a surname of Wills -- and is not always that conversant in our language. I've never had reason to doubt that he visits Aruba every year (having received a postcard). Kent's been straight with me for ten years, which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of Christians (and most certainly, more than I can say for you). He even tells me up-front when he's yanking your chain.
I don't know if you understand this, Ted, but there are a lot of people out there who are honest. You seem to believe that everyone is as paranoid and/or mendacious as you. Most of the folks I've met on USENET are a decent sort, who don't have chips on their shoulders the size of Mount Rushmore. I've not had good reason to question Kent's veracity for a long time, and he has no obvious motive to lie to me. If I ask Kent a question, he'll give me a straight answer straightaway -- unlike you. I stand by my statement: I've never caught Kent in a lie, and he doesn't give me reason to doubt him.
Anonymous said...
I was one of the jurors on the trial and I have to say that Cameron is guilty. I hope the next jury will have reasonable jurors who can do their job.
10/25/06 9:28 AM
I brought this over here because it was posted long after everyone moved on from that thread.
I was able to by-pass the ban (if Ted knew HALF of what he claims to know about 'Net plumbing, I wouldn't be able). As expected, Ted poofed the posts. I didn't expect him to do it so quickly. I didn't have time to copy and paste my comments :-(
I will do my best to re-post them word for word here, but I can not guaranty 100% accuracy. The context will be 100%.
From the KOOK blog:
We can't speak for Geragos and why he chose to play it the way he did, but the bomb exists.
Then why hasn't anyone seen to it that Geragos was charged with the ethical violation?
He is ethically and LEGALLY bound to present any and all evidence that PROVES his client innocent. That he didn't do so is sound evidence that the bomb never existed.
How come he didn't spend any time in prison?
Because some bleeding-heart judge gave him probation instead.
In direct violation of Iowa's sentencing laws? [For readers unaware, Ted has studied the applicable laws, or he lied, so he know that I should be in prison if the site were true]
While I didn't think of it at the time, there were THREE felonies listed. Iowa has a "Three Strikes and You're Out" law. A MINIMUM of 25 is the sentence. There is NO option for probation.
Yes, one can get parole, but not until after a third of the sentence has been served.
Ted: Cut it out. There is no "Lindsay".
Ken: You mean, he hired an actress?
Technically Ted is correct. Lindsay is not her real name. It's a nick name her brother gave her when she was a baby. Ted is using the fact that Lindsay is not her legal name to justify claiming she doesn't exist.
Knock it off. The Iowa Courts website tells us all that we need know about Kent Wills.
And Ted's own Usenet posts tell us all we need to know about him. He's a felon who once partook of LSD. It explains a great deal since LSD is known to cause all sorts of mental problems.
This one won't last long:
Ted (a.k.a., Humpty Dumpty) displayed his unfathomable and impenetrable stupidity by declaring: Just remember that his "case" was not [originally] a court case, but rather a job interview.
A "job interview?" Since when did I slip through the Looking-Glass?
[blockquote]`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'[blockquote]
It really doesn't matter what you call it, Humpty. "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." I have quoted that to you a dozen times, but your incessant acid flashbacks (which obviously clouded your perception of the trial -- and evidently kept you from seeing that Cam is a baby-killer) prevent you from perceiving simple rules of law like that. Irrespective of what you want to call it, the Constitution is supposed to give me certain protections as against arbitrary and capricious governmental action.
If that was a "job interview," what Cam did was surely "murder."
Humpty Ted Dumpty continued to prevaricate through creative sodomization of the dictionary: You are trying to pretend that it's the same as a court case, and it's not. Judge Samour (then a prosecutor) was a Bar Examiner. And neither the Inquiry Panel nor the Hearing Panel were adversarial forums. Their job was to determine your suitability for acceptance into the Bar. There was nothing improper about him sitting on both panels. This is elementary.
Rule 201.8, C.R.C.P.: Members of the Bar Committee may be assigned by the chair from one panel to another, but in no event shall a member who has conducted a preliminary screening or inquiry of an applicant take any part in the consideration of a formal hearing involving the same applicant.
Hey, Ted -- don't ever let the facts get in the way of your immaculately tendentious misconceptions.
Since we're making up facts, how about the fact that Cam threw Lauren off the cliff because she threatened to tell Sarah that you and him were sodomizing her (which was, of course, quite true)? Now, there's an obvious motive for murder -- string 'em both up! (I don't want to play by those rules, but CI isn't stopping this, so she must be endorsing it.) Now, that's glory for you! :)
As for it not being an "adversarial forum," I would happily take that concession from them if they would give it -- as it would be a due process violation by definition. Like I said, Ted, you really should STFU about things you know absolutely nothing about ... like the law.
Ted continues: Anyway, where in CRCP Rule 201 does it say that the applicant has the right to second-guess the Bar Examiners?
Uh, ever heard of the Constitution, Ted? "Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay." Colo. Const. art. II, sec. 6. I've already explained how this applies, but as your level of stupidity is beyond my conception, I realize that any attempt to get you to use the King's English is even harder than trying to teach a pig to sing.
But Rule 201.2(5) does say that you can't sue them, and you did anyway.
State officials cannot grant immunity for violations of federal law. If you knew anything about the law, you'd know this. While ignorance is curable, your stupidity is impenetrable.
Ted (another post): And now she's going to justify herself, because no one likes to admit that they're wrong -- particualry in a situation like this.
Keep adding to that karmic debt you owe me, Ted. If you want to persist in lying about me and making up facts just to avoid admitting that you were wrong, I will continue to defend myself on your level. I just can't believe that CI hasn't had enough of your act yet -- she seems so much more sensible on other levels.
Ted: On the other hand, Kent isn't very hard to find at all.
Was I hiding? Well, sort of. Having a mentally ill stalker (one that makes Ted look quite sane and rational by comparison) does give one motivation to hide a bit.
Enter the name "Kent Bradley Wills" in the search box on Google, hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, and voila!, you find him right away (in a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court).
Ted is rarely correct, but he's not one to let truth, facts, or evidence get in the way. Given his self admitted checked pharmaceutical past, it's actually understandable.
Ken: How come he didn't spend any time in prison? He has been posting continuously, which he
Except for the time I was in and out of the hospital due to complications with diabetes. This is well documented on various news groups (mostly alt.consumers.free-stuff which was my "home" group at the time). My posts were sparse during the nearly a year that I was dealing with that.
When I was in the hospital, I couldn't post, of course. When I was out, spending time on-line just didn't seem important. It was at, or very near, the bottom of things to do.
surely would not be able to do if the facts of that reported case were true. Certainly, he would not be able to post from Arkansas (as you have asserted) or Aruba (again, the postcard to me proves that he was there),
NO parole/probation officer is going to give the OK for a felon to travel to South America. And TSA would be able to find out very quickly if the person was on probation/parole. They aren't going to allow it either.
More proof can be seen in the photos as well.
Here's something:
If anyone can prove the photos I posted came from anywhere else, I will personally pay $10,000.00 to the charity of their choice (even if said charity is themselves).
If anyone offers a site that posted the pictures AFTER I made them available at my geocities site [ http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/aruba2006/ ], that won't do. The pictures must have been made available BEFORE I did.
This also applies to this year's photos.
http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/aruba2007/
as it would certainly have been a serious violation of the terms of any parole arrangement he might have had. You have to have a lot of 'juice' to get a bogus decision filed with the Court, but he apparently has the money to throw around.
At the risk of sounding like I'm bragging, Geragos wouldn't have put a lien on my home if I had to hire him.
Ted is jealous that I've done as well as I have in life while he... well, he certainly isn't bankrupt, but he isn't doing nearly as well.
Further, everyone comments about how beautiful my wife is. And she's Hispanic. Ted HATES anyone who isn't white (recall his "pregnant brown cow" comment about pregnant Hispanic women, made while Lin was pregnant). A mixed marriage is something he can not tolerate.
Of course, Ted has NO use for a woman no matter her race.
Sounds like he scammed Inspector Ted Clousseau again.
Ted was one of the easier subjects to mole. To date, only my stalker has proved easier.
Getting Ted to think, act and believe as I wish was (and is) far too easy.
Ted, posting anonymously: Kent's sister was born in the US and presumably shares the same to US born parents that Kent has. Kent was no more born in Poland than I was. Proof has been offered, but as usual you have ignored it.
Unless Ted has access to my birth certificate, and that of my sister and parents (a felony since he has no legal right to have them) we can conclude that Ted is, at best, guessing. Most probably he is lying again, as he is wont to do.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Ted, post the PROOF that my sister and parents were born in the United States. I double dog dare ya.
Crickets chirping wildly.
CountryGirl wrote:
Anonymous said...
I was one of the jurors on the trial and I have to say that Cameron is guilty. I hope the next jury will have reasonable jurors who can do their job.
The problem I have with that is the anonymous nature of the post. It may be 100% accurate, but since the person is unwilling to put their name to the comment, I have to question it.
K: Let me tell you what's sad, CI: That you are not the least bit offended by Ted.
CI: Offended by what? That he has an opinion? That he choses to express it?
While Ted is certainly entitled to his own opinion, he is not epistemically entitled to his own facts or language. And if Ted is entitled to express that opinion, why should I not be entitled to express MY opinion that Ted is unfathomably stupid? Different weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
The parallel between Ted and Humpty Dumpty are drawn not on comparisons of girth, but on the liberties he has taken with the language, as exemplified by this quote: "Just remember that his "case" was not [originally] a court case, but rather a job interview."
A "job interview?" Since when did I slip through the Looking-Glass?
Next, I quote the applicable passage from Through the Looking-Glass to drive home this point:[blockquote]`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'[blockquote]
It really doesn't matter what you call it, Humpty-- er, Ted. "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Irrespective of what you want to call it, the Constitution is supposed to give me certain protections as against arbitrary and capricious governmental action.
If that was a "job interview," what Cam did was surely "murder." (This was Carroll's point, as well: To communicate effectively, we must have a common language, with terms that mean the same to everyone.)
Ted continues, in the tradition of Humpty Dumpty: You are trying to pretend that it's the same as a court case, and it's not. Judge Samour (then a prosecutor) was a Bar Examiner. And neither the Inquiry Panel nor the Hearing Panel were adversarial forums. Their job was to determine your suitability for acceptance into the Bar. There was nothing improper about him sitting on both panels. This is elementary.
Here is the controlling fact, which has been pointed out to Ted at least a dozen times: Rule 201.8, C.R.C.P.: Members of the Bar Committee may be assigned by the chair from one panel to another, but in no event shall a member who has conducted a preliminary screening or inquiry of an applicant take any part in the consideration of a formal hearing involving the same applicant.
Again, if it is epistemically permissible for Ted to proceed in open defiance of indisputable facts and even fabricate facts to reach his tendentious conclusions, why is it not equally acceptable for Craig Hum to do the same? If he makes up facts and uses them to convict Cam, where is the harm? You don't seem to be unduly offended by it when your best friend's hubby isn't the target (if you are not Patty herself). Do unto others as you would have them unto you, CI.
As you have taken issue with people like CG, Loretta, and Kent for not knowing what you know, and grounding their opinions in what you purport to be ignorance, I fail to see why you are not offended by Ted's persistent habit of speaking out of his own unfathomable ignorance (about the law). To wit:
[blockquote]As for it not being an "adversarial forum," I would happily take that concession from them if they would give it -- as it would be a due process violation by definition. Like I said, Ted, you really should [shut up] about things you know absolutely nothing about ... like the law.
Ted continues: Anyway, where in CRCP Rule 201 does it say that the applicant has the right to second-guess the Bar Examiners?
Uh, ever heard of the Constitution, Ted? "Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay." Colo. Const. art. II, sec. 6. I've already explained how this applies, but as your level of stupidity is beyond my conception, I realize that any attempt to get you to use the King's English is even harder than trying to teach a pig to sing.
But Rule 201.2(5) does say that you can't sue them, and you did anyway.
State officials cannot grant immunity for violations of federal law. If you knew anything about the law, you'd know this. While ignorance is curable, your stupidity is impenetrable.[/blockquote]
CI, how many times do I have to cite case law, statutes, and basic principles of black-letter law before you would call it fair to label Ted "stupid" (or worse) to proceed in open defiance of them? As the actual number is in the hundreds if not thousands, it is almost inconceivable that you would not say that I have done so more than I should have needed to. Ted is either stupid, vindictive, or suffering from persistent acid flashbacks.
Finally, I closed with this:
[blockquote] Ted (another post): And now she's going to justify herself, because no one likes to admit that they're wrong -- particualry in a situation like this.
Keep adding to that karmic debt you owe me, Ted. If you want to persist in lying about me and making up facts just to avoid admitting that you were wrong, I will continue to defend myself on your level. I just can't believe that CI hasn't had enough of your act yet -- she seems so much more sensible on other levels.[/blockquote]
When you act with the intent to injure, as Ted so clearly has, you can't expect that your actions can or should be permitted impunity.
Get off your high horse, CI. Call a fair game, and put Ted in the penalty box where he belongs, and you won't have these kind of problems. I'm a fair-minded guy, but I don't like being treated unfairly, and will react as stridently as I deem appropriate.
CI: I've tried to welcome your opinions and discussion, but I will not listen to your wildly exaggerated statements that ONLY exist to make Patty and Ted uncomfortable.
Don't tell me that you are channeling Humpty Dumpty too! What "wildly exaggerated" statements have I made? All I have done here is illustrate the ramifications of Ted's paradigm, which leads to what you would surely consider as unpleasant conclusions if you are not allowed to resort to special pleading. My focus is on the process of knowing; I don't give a rat's hindquarters if Cam is innocent or guilty, because I don't have a horse in that race. I merely express my faith that if the process is followed scrupulously, the right answer will be precipitated out.
I frequently make points using the tool of an reductio ad absurdum argument to illustrate just how absurd (mostly, Ted's) position is. If I have done my job, you should be exclaiming that that is outrageously unfair -- and by implication, concluding that Ted's position is outrageously unfair.
CI: "even when prompted by your ridiculous claims about [Ted]"
What ridiculous claims? I didn't compile this list (although I have many of the original posts archived, so that Ted can't deny them):"Theodore A. Kaldis" [kaldis@worldnet.att.net] wrote:
>I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys in. Why shouldn't they let me in? At least I'm not from a completely alien culture.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What other words are there? "Gook". "Slope". "Slant-eye". The list continues further downhill from here.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
BTW, you're not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be "nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
The Dick-suckin' Chicks are toast.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I have the Holy Spirit to lead me into all the truth and righteousness.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.comThat Ted is a compulsive liar (and otherwise wins the Mark Fuhrmann Award) -- and issues facile denials when challenged on it -- is an established fact. That you have no moral problem with this and indeed, criticize others for pointing this fact out, speaks more to your character than anything else.
CI: If you wish to be treated decently, you also need to be decent.
Evidently, you are invoking Kaldis Rules[tm]: One set of rules for you and yours, and another for us unwashed heathen. It is perfectly acceptable for Ted to be abusive, but when people react to his bullying, it is somehow verboten? If you banned him from the forum (certainly, Kent has done far less to deserve it), the problems you complain of would disappear.
CI: Again, Ted is not doing anything more than stating his opinion,
Again, you lie. As the only logical relationship my battle with the Bar would have with this case is in its value for establishing an epistemic paradigm -- and as such, establishing that Ted is engaged in special pleading -- the mere fact that he is "stating his opinion" is also "character assassination" by definition. For nearly a decade, Ted has used this as a means to assassinate my character, and I have neither patience nor tolerance for it.
CI: and you are certainly being allowed the forum to tell him where he is wrong without resorting to character assassination.
In Ted's case, it is more of a cross between a mercy killing and assisted suicide.
If this is your mode of communication with others, I can see why the bar raised some extraordinary questions.
I usually save this terse mode of communication for abusive stalkers and bullies like Ted. They deserve a taste of their own medicine, and one can't help but bask in his angst.
CI: Further, I have looked into the situation with Kent because I wanted to understand the bruhaha, and it astounds me that you have not bothered to do the same. It's certainly your right, but the idea you would call Ted a liar when you have not even bothered to do some fact checking only tells me that your statement regarding Ted are hollow. You are, I think, afraid to know the truth because it will undermine what you are trying to do against Ted. Just as you so cavalierly say that you are not interested in the details of this case, it's clear you are only motivated by your desires to hurt Ted. I have little patience or time for that.
Just as you are honor-bound not to betray certain confidences, I am in much the same position as it relates to Kent. I know what you and Ted don't know (and Kent advises me up-front when he "has Ted on"). What's more, I read the Iowa Supreme Court case in question, and can see that if the facts were as stated therein, Kent would be 'in the joint' right now as a matter of law. That he could manage to have an opinion like that fabricated astounds and disturbs me, as it is a citable opinion, and when a binding precedent is based on a complete fabrication, it calls the entire rule of law into question. The ramifications are enormous, but Sherlock Holmes' famous axiom applies.
I call Ted a liar based on a veritable motherlode of USENET evidence, which in virtually every case has exactly nothing to do with Kent Wills. There is the fag-rolling incident, consumption of electric beer (that suddenly "didn't happen," when I pointed out that LSD is forever), the Mark Fuhrmann incident ("I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon""), and at least a hundred more instances occurring over the years. Yes, your precious Ted is a liar -- not only explicitly, but by intentional omission ("Half the truth is often a lie in effect."). And yes, your precious Ted is a stalker -- as evidenced by his actions against Kym Horsell, his surfing for me on the 'Net whilst I was busy surfing Perth, and his bizarre attempt to trace me to Tahiti (I was sitting in front of the fire at home). Again, CI, you are not entitled to your own facts.
As for Kent, I have yet to catch him in a lie, although a reservoir of trust has been built over the years to the point where I have not seen a pressing need to continue looking. (That he has had to obscure certain facts about his life is an unfortunate necessity of USENET, and I have no real problem with that. As a stalker, Ted makes Inspector Clousseau appear competent, but the fact is that we do have to guard our personal information more closely these days, because others are not nearly as inept.) While it is theoretically possible that he hired a woman to play his wife, there is no reason to believe that he is not married. And while it is theoretically possible that he doesn't visit his timeshare in Aruba every year (and it's also theoretically possible that I have never visited Australia), the occasional post card tends to prove otherwise. Unlike Ted, he has no reason to lie.
If I have been "had," then I have. So be it; it really doesn't matter overmuch. But that doesn't change the indisputable fact that Ted is a liar.
Ted: Hum said something completely different in his closing statement than he had said in his opening. Fact is, both are lies.
Ted, I no longer know what you mean by any word you use. I am more befuddled than poor Alice, if that is even possible.
If you are entitled to your own facts, your own definition of words, and your own opinion, then so is Craig Hum. Further, what you angrily denounce as "lies" are, without doubt, fair comments on the evidence which were supported by the record and rang true with the jury, as is evidenced by the outcome. Sounds like you are just chafed that he beat the Oily Greek in a fair fight, or Mark Geragos' reputation as a hack lawyer who only defends guilty rich people, and none too well (see, e.g., Ann Coulter's column; the John and Ken show) must have proceeded him. Even Wacko Jacko cut him loose, and as John and Ken observed, there must have been some reason as to why.
Ted: A number of Ken's posts are getting POOFED again because of (same old story) excessive abuse. Ken, lay off the ad hom and abuse, and your posts will remain.
Ted, you and I both know that you are a compulsive liar, who routinely takes indecent liberties with the language. How does my pointing this uncomfortable (for you) fact out constitute "excessive abuse?" Why is my quoting Lewis Carroll to illustrate this point inappropriate? Explain where the foul is here:
[blockquote]While Ted is certainly entitled to his own opinion, he is not epistemically entitled to his own facts or language. And if Ted is entitled to express that opinion, why should I not be entitled to express MY opinion that Ted is unfathomably stupid? Different weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
The parallel between Ted and Humpty Dumpty are drawn not on comparisons of girth, but on the liberties he has taken with the language, as exemplified by this quote: "Just remember that his "case" was not [originally] a court case, but rather a job interview."
A "job interview?" Since when did I slip through the Looking-Glass?
Next, I quote the applicable passage from Through the Looking-Glass to drive home this point:
[blockquote]`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'[/blockquote]
It really doesn't matter what you call it, Humpty-- er, Ted. "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Irrespective of what you want to call it, the Constitution is supposed to give me certain protections as against arbitrary and capricious governmental action.
If that was a "job interview," what Cam did was surely "murder." (This was Carroll's point, as well: To communicate effectively, we must have a common language, with terms that mean the same to everyone.)[/blockquote]
Either you are unfathomably stupid, hopelessly hypocritical, or both.
If it is acceptable for you to attempt to impugn my mental stability, it is equally acceptable for me to question your honesty, integrity, and/or capacity for rational thought. What's fair for the goose is fair for the gooser, and everyone else can appreciate for themselves the fundamental hypocrisy of your position by visiting http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com/ and reviewing that blog for themselves.
Wow. Ted has seriously stuck his foot in it this time....
Ted wrote: Okay, Ken, so I was wrong about this. I had quickly glanced over CRCP Rules Section 201, but apparently too quickly. It cannot be lost on the Bar Examiners that they are violating the rules here. But on the other hand, they also know that your only viable recourse in law is to the U.S. Supreme Court. And also that the chances of the SC taking your case are essentially nil. Which effectively leaves you out in the cold.
So why are they doing it? To spank you, and that you know it. Because of your arrogance. ...
That is what I mean when I say that you don’t know who are the chiefs, and who is the indian.
Get your head screwed on. Your interminable prattling about violation of rights isn’t getting you very far, and you are squandering your talents. You need to get past your petty pride and learn some humility.
Those are truly breathtaking statements, Ted -- which Case Insider, Patty and everyone else in earshot should be mortified by. Most significantly, the rule of law you argue for -- that we should always submit meekly to the authorities, no matter how egregious their abuse of our inalienable "God-given" rights as men -- can be applied to your precious Cam with equal force. Sure, Craig Hum can lie to the jury, suborn perjury, and manufacture evidence ... but it's all good, because he knows that Mark Arnold and the entire legal community will protect him. This effectively leaves Cam in a cold cell, wasting away the best years of his life. And it really sucks for Patty, for even if Cam gets out (which I think is relatively unlikely), he won't be the same man who went in. No big loss, right? That is your position -- consistently applied.
And to think that they spanked me for my "arrogance" in asserting my rights under law, and you have 'no problem' with that?!? Patrick Henry would respond thusly: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?...I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Surely, you would not be endorsing such a travesty! [Or would you?]
Once again, the same rules apply to Cam. All he needed to do is plead out to Murder Two, and cut a deal for ten-to-twenty. He gets out in five, and still has the $1,000,000 or so squandered on Geragos, and everybody's happy. But he arrogantly asserted his right to a fair hearing, just as I did. That he is forced to use that yellow toothbrush because they are spanking him for his arrogance is, under your view of the world, perfectly acceptable. Cam didn't learn who was the chiefs, or that he was the indian ... and by your own moral standards, he is getting precisely what he deserves. Ted, why AREN'T you telling Cam to "Get your head on straight, and just take the deal?"
Don't you think Cam needs to "get past his petty pride and learn some humility?" And don't you think that you, CI, and Patty are squandering your talents by engaging in "interminable prattling about how his rights are being violated?" Obviously, it isn't getting you very far, as you can't convince anyone of importance. Cam Brown doesn't have or deserve any "rights" by your guidestar, and should throw in the towel while he can.
Differing weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
Ted: so that you might again play the martyr.
I don't have to play the martyr -- as you have just made the on-the-record concession I needed to beat you over the head with from here to eternity, should you not repent of your current position. You have admitted that the Examiners violated their rules and my rights, in a substantial way (given your whine about Judge Arnold's purported bias). You can no longer proclaim with even a shred of credibility that my lawsuit was frivolous, groundless, or baseless -- all you can declare at this point is that I have no remedies under law because in America, there is no law.
Game, set, and match, Ted.
Since I expect Ted to POOF this as soon as he notices I've bypassed his ban (again), I did a copy and paste here.
Ted:
Kent Wills is banned, so he just got POOFED.
And yet I post.
Now, perhaps you will be kind enough to explain why you guys are still using Geragos when, by your claims, he committed a SERIOUS breach of ethics by not using the evidence that proves Cameron is innocent?
If you aren't willing, perhaps someone else could explain it to me. If I were charged with 1st degree murder, and there was evidence that PROVES I'm innocent, I certainly wouldn't be using the attorney that refused to present it at trial. As such, I can't think of any reason for you guy to retain Geragos' services.
Ted babbled: and I have the law on my side.
And what law is that, Ted? Proper citations to SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit, and/or binding California precedent will be accepted -- but if you presented even a single precedent in support of your frivolous, baseless and interminable whines, it would be a first. Kaldis v. The World, 1 B.S. 666 (2007) doesn't qualify. ;-)
Last time we left this party, Cam has been languishing in jail for over three years, and has to brush his teeth with a yellow toothbrush. That 995 motion was absolutely comical, and the fact that Geragos hasn't filed a habeas motion is conclusive proof that Cam isn't being held illegally. Given that the first trial ended hung 10-2 for -- as close as you can get to a conviction without actually being convicted -- the argument that probable cause didn't exist to arrest him is risible. Besides, it is their sandbox, and they get to take certain 'liberties' with the rules under Kaldis Rules[tm]. No matter how you slice it, Cam's generally recognized constitutional rights have not been violated by his arrest and subsequent incarceration. Any injuries he suffers as a result of the trial itself and his incarceration pending it are absque damnum injuria -- iow, no big loss. Finally, Cam had the right to rescind his speedy trial waiver, which means that all of this is 100% his fault.
Ted, you haven't even been able to sell Larry Glasser on this nonsense of yours.
What, that the Bar Examiners broke their rules? I got news for you, Sparky. Just that in itself doesn't quite add up to a violation of Constitutional rights.
Actually, it does. The Constitution says that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. SCOTUS says that due process means a fair hearing in front of an independent tribunal. Seven violations of the rules, depriving me of the hearing I was entitled to under law, adds up to a clear rights violation. Of course, if our courts don't have to follow the law, the law is no protection for any of us -- and whatever happens to Cam in the joint is pretty much what he deserves.
You didn't play by the rules, and Judge Nottingham, and also the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, did what they should have reasonably been expected to have done.
What rules didn't I play by, Ted? Explain how it is and should be that a violation of constitutional rights by state actors cannot be remedied by a civil action under Section 1983. And when you are done with that, explain why it is that Cam Brown should have a remedy under federal law, if a violation of constitutional rights by state actors cannot be remedied by a civil action under Section 1983. Every time you swing at me, you land a haymaker to the guts of your case for Cam.
Judge Arnold is beside the point here. The two issues have nothing to do with one another.
Why? Because you said so? LOL!
The issues have everything to do with one another. If the Colorado courts can violate the law with impunity, then so can their California counterparts. If they happen to run over Cam and Patty in the process, no big loss. It's just life in the big city. After all, the King can do no wrong. Your argument, Ted -- not mine.
If a prosecutor or investigator can sit on a jury, and you can still call that trial "fair," any notion that it would be unfair for a judge to have a generalized pro-cop bias is just staggeringly stupid, Ted.
Swallow your pride and admit that you are wrong, Ted. You lost.
Ted blustered: Last I looked, you're still not a lawyer.
Last time I looked, Cam was still in the joint and dating Bubba. What's it been now -- forty months? If it's all good when injustice befalls me, it must be all good when it befalls the Kaldis Klan. Bible says so, Ted.
At least, I was able to have a yellow beverage while dining alfresco on the patio today after a quick round of golf (shot 39) -- and could probably live the rest of my life on what you're paying that black hole of yours. Cam only has a yellow toothbrush to put in his mouth, and he will be lucky if he ever sees green again. I wouldn't be taunting people if I were in your position....
Yes, apparently they violated their own rules. Big deal. (You could have told me earlier, BTW. I never knew any of this about Carlos Samour.)
Ted, caught out lying again? What a, er-- surprise.
Fer chrissakes, Ted, didn't you even bother READING my complaint before denouncing it as "frivolous, groundless, and baseless" and my appeal to the 10th Circuit as "just as pointless?" Again, I am stunned that you would make such an embarrassing admission.
I know that your relationship to facts is usually a tenuous one at best, but come on! Paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint in state court states:
[blockquote]If there were any legitimate question as to whether Colorado's bar admission process is a fair and unbiased quasi-judicial proceeding, it is dispelled irrevocably by the fact that Defendant Carlos Samour sat on the Inquiry Panel named to prosecute Smith and the Hearing Panel chosen to judge his case for admission. [Exhibits A, B] If there is any other judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding in the civilized world where a person who prosecuted a defendant is defendant is permitted to sit on the jury deciding the same case, Plaintiff is blissfully unaware of it.[/blockquote]
The salient documents were attached to the original complaint. I've also highlighted it on USENET in threads you have participated in. But you have steadfastly refused to ignore any facts or law beneficial to my case ... and for almost a decade, you have engaged in a relentless campaign of character assassination based on deliberate lies and omissions. Facts like this are fatal to your case, as they prove that my complaint is not "frivolous, groundless, and baseless" -- under the law, these words have specific meaning. As such, you deliberately ignore them.
Violating their own rules is a VERY big deal. As Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist #78:
[blockquote]There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.[/blockquote]
For the most part, statutory enactments of this nature protect the public, as they tell the State what it can and cannot do.
And as always, all this has obvious application to People v. Brown: If you get to ignore all the facts that hurt your case, why shouldn't Craig Hum be entitled to ignore all the facts that might hurt his? And if the State can violate their rules in my bar admission proceeding, why can't Craig Hum ignore those pesky rules about turning over and/or destroying exculpatory evidence in Cam's case? So, Craig Hum is breaking those rules, you say? "Big deal."
"What, that [Craig Hum] broke the rules? I got news for you, Sparky. Just that in itself doesn't quite add up to a violation of Constitutional rights."
"Guilty as charged!" Who cares about all those pesky facts anyway, eh, Ted?
Ted, I'm still trying to figure out the rationale for your censorship of the following passage from Lewis Carroll. The parallel between you and Humpty Dumpty are drawn not on comparisons of girth, but on the indecent liberties you routinely take with the language, as exemplified by this quote: "Just remember that [my bar admission] "case" was not [originally] a court case, but rather a job interview."
A "job interview?" Since when did I slip through the Looking-Glass?
Next, I quote the applicable passage from Through the Looking-Glass to drive home this point:
[blockquote]`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'[/blockquote]
Or as the Moody Blues put it, "A thousand pictures can be drawn from one word. Only who is the artist? We got to agree." Words have to have meaning, and we have to be able to agree on what that discrete meaning is, before effective communication is possible.
You have advised people to perform indecent acts on the dictionary before, and it seems that you are wont to engage in that sort of activity on a regular basis. How is making this point even the slightest bit abusive or improper?
The argument is absolutely devastating. But, it's really wasted on him, Ken.
And while we are at this, Ted, on what ground do you justify your consistent practice of "poofing" posts that simply expose you as the ignorant, untutored rube you are? To wit:
Ken wrote:
Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 231 (1974) (Marshall, J., dissenting)
"Marshall, J."??? What, John Marshall??? In 1974??? Don't you mean "Marshall, T."?
The explanation is a simple one, and one I recall giving: standard citation practices draw a distinction between a dissent of the chief justice (C.J.), and an associate justice (J.) of a given court. (Why this is so isn't that clear.) Thus, you will find some Rehnquist dissents denoted as "Rehnquist, J., dissenting," and others as "Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting." Since John Marshall was always a Chief Justice of SCOTUS and Thurgood Marshall never was, there is never any confusion between the two among the legally trained -- not that the case citation itself (there is more than a century separating their tenures) wouldn't be a dead giveaway....
There is no such thing as a stupid question, and you shouldn't feel embarrassed to ask. But that simple explanation magically disappeared, solely because you perceived that it embarrassed you (probably, on account of the arrogant way in which you asked it). When a judge gets to decide his own cause, justice is invariably thrown out the window, don't you agree?
Loretta: The argument is absolutely devastating. But, it's really wasted on him, Ken.
But I don't think it is wasted on the others ... and I honestly don't think it is entirely wasted on Ted. He has to think before he poofs and importantly, he has to consider the argument as a condition predicate to his rejoinder. He has lustily painted himself into a corner, and extrication will not be a simple task. :)
Personally, I'm shocked that Geragos even let the dogs out.
Good to hear from you.
Oh, I've been reading every comment with great interest. I am a big fan of yours, Ken. I think some of the repetition is kind of dull, but that must be a guy thing.
I have been preparing a new entry for this case based on the dialogue for the past few months. I have some opinions and since this is my blog, I think it's the appropriate place to air them.
Presumably, our readership still includes some of the immediate family, certainly GerEgo or his proxy, some of the DA's office, and of course the KKK.
I will be back with something new and a new thread. I've been rather busy lately doing real life things (including romantic ones), so I have woefully neglected this blog.
Time to get on the stick again.
Oh, and I will slip that I have another theory.
I believe it is entirely possible that Geragos has dropped Brown as a client. This would explain the lack of moves by him to release his client on bail or move to dismiss, blah blah. Nobody has the ball, yet. It's possible the KKK are shopping for a new lawyer.
It would also explain why the KKK have been released from their gag order.
BTW, I believe Case Insider is either Jeanne Paredes (a sock puppet of Patty's) or Patty herself.
From the other blog:
CI: Ken, this site isn't about you. Why don't you take this to the KKT show? You have been disrupting this site since it's inception and none of it has anything at all to do with Cameron Brown aside from your childish protestations that if Ted can feel as he does about your case, Cam Brown must be guilty or somehow deserves everything that has happened to him. Your wanking on about it is like finger nails on a chalkboard to me and others who have tried to participate here. I am asking you to please stop. Again. You are admittedly not interested in what any of us have to say here were it not for Ted being present, and to me that means you are here to harrass and stalk him. PLEASE STOP!
You can see these facts in such a skewed and distorted manner and yet, you wonder why 99% of the general population concludes that Cam is a child-killer based on the clear facts of the case? Wake up and smell the latte, CI.
Your "wanking on" about poor widdle Cammie is like fingernails on a chalkboard to everyone else and in particular, those you have banned because they have the temerity to hold the opinion that he is a child-killer. My interest in this case is strictly procedural; I could give a damn as to whether he did it or not, or will be pronounced guilty (that is a question for the jury, and I trust them to do their job). That Ted keeps arguing for a double-standard is relevant because he makes it so, by complaining about an endless array of boogie-men in the closet.
Think about it. So what if, Judge Arnold used to be a cop or a prosecutor -- most judges used to be. Any argument that this constitutes a constitutionally impermissible infringement upon Cam's right to a fair trial before a jury is spectacularly ludicrous; if that were the case, we would have to overturn 70% of existing convictions, and only hire former Black Panthers as judges. Moreover, when Ted doesn't see anything wrong with a prosecutor serving as judge and jury in a proceeding of similar constitutional import (i.o.w., resulting in the impairment of life, liberty, or property), it is a clear indication that even he thinks the argument is ridiculous. But yet, you trot that turkey out -- unrepentant and unashamed.
This is not about me, and not about Ted. It IS about winnowing away bad arguments, because bad arguments detract from your good ones. Justice Frankfurter spoke famously about "the clock that struck thirteen," and how a ridiculous argument destroys an advocate's credibility. There may be reason to howl, but if you continually advance bad reasons to howl, any good reasons you might have had will be lost in the noise. Clearly, if you wouldn't concede an argument when it is applied in the case of your worst enemy, then you really don't believe what you are arguing for, and probably shouldn't be making the argument.
If this observation isn't of value to you because you want to run a Pravda-class propaganda blog, then it isn't. I can't help (or stop) that. But let's be honest about what is really happening here.
Ted:Ken Smith mendaciously wrote:
K: Ted, caught out lying again? ...
T: What do you mean "again"?
Again [əˈgen] adverb: once more or another time.
T:Do you suppose that I'm like you?
No. I almost always tell the truth as I see it, support my assertions where important with pithy and cogent arguments, and meticulously document my claims. You frequently engage your fingers before your brain and almost never support your assertions, and for you, the truth is an undiscovered country.
T: Of course I read it. But it's so chock-full of every little slight against you by everyone associated with the Bar Examiners (with the possible exception of the courthouse janitor) that one's head starts to spin after the first half-page, and making it nigh upon impossible to fully digest. Accordingly, it just simply didn't register.
I am sorry to hear that you are still having those acid flashbacks, Ted. Everyone else who has read it can understand it. But then again, most of the readers can read and understand English, and don't need to have the TKTFD handy for translation.
When your attorney is Mark Geragos, that is the kind of smack you shouldn't even try to run. His 995 motion set standards for incomprehensibility that I couldn't hope to achieve, even on a rough first draft. After all, it went over with all the force of a feather. Must not have been very good.
Plus, never mind he stole the term "Poof" from me.
I think.
A: This is the problem. There have been no CLEAR FACTS of this case presented! All you have heard is the misrepresentations and blatant lies of an unscrupulous prosecutor.
When I refer to "clear facts," I speak of those facts that no one can reasonably dispute (e.g., Cam took her up there, it was a very dangerous place [Ted's photos prove this], any reasonable parent would have exercised much more care than Cam did, there was a nasty paternity dispute, and Cam was paying $1,000/month in child support), and the bad facts even Ted admits to (I'm not going to try to document them here; see USENET). The State also brought forth an array of witnesses -- including old neighbors and his old Baywatch Babe girlfriend -- who had no discernible reason to lie. Their testimony carries weight. And speaking of weight, don't think Patty's presence and appearance didn't hurt (I would have advised Patty to get into serious shape before the trial, and would send her to the gym right now; you may think it crass [and it is], but appearance does matter at trial).
My question is simple: Does anyone outside your close circle of friends really believe that Cam is innocent? Looks like the verdict in cyberspace is unanimous, as it was on USENET. On the facts as reported, pretty much everyone (I'd estimate over 90%) is going to weigh in for murder two.
The all-purpose remedy for "misrepresentations and blatant lies of an unscrupulous prosecutor" is an effective defense attorney, and the simplest proof of same is the trial transcript. But while you seem to worship the ground Geragos walks on, he seems to have failed miserably in his task, and even though the trial transcripts are public record, you have embargoed them. If I cared enough about this case -- and I don't -- I'd get them myself. Why aren't they on the 'Net for everyone to see? If what you say has even a scintilla of merit, I'd expect you to do precisely that.
As Clara Peller used to say, "Where's the beef?"
A: and you were willing to be honest regardless of your feelings about Ted
When have I not been honest? My assessment of this case isn't affected in any material sense by my loathing of Ted, apart from the fact that I am compelled to severely discount anything he says about it. As we have seen recently, Ted would basically say that the sky is green to win an argument; no fact is safe with him.
If I were really being unfair or unreasonably biased against Cam, you would expect my views to be in the distinct minority, and there would be a great public clamor for his release. Frankly, I am not aware of even a single person outside your circle of friends and Loretta's circle of mutts who thinks he is obviously innocent.
The fact that you have to engage in excessive viewpoint-based censorship is proof that even you don't have the courage of your convictions. It opens you up to valid criticism from all comers, as censorship is in itself a damning admission: You don't have the confidence in your own arguments, and fear to engage your opponents on equal footing.
What would you say in response to this criticism:[blockquote]
Wayne Delia said...
Ken: Game, set, and match.
Not with this particular admission from [Ted]. It's more like "game, set, match, tournament."
Loretta: The argument is absolutely devastating. But, it's really wasted on him, Ken.
I wouldn't be too sure about that at all. It's never a waste on anyone else, such as myself, as I've picked up a lot of new admiration and respect for all the trouble Ken's had with the Colorado Board of Examiners, and the hypocrisy of [Ted's] argument is about as clear as it can get. But [Ted's] a rare form of "intelligent moron," who is able to craft, for example, what sounds like an apology which doesn't technically qualify as an apology, all as part of him creating an impression which he's reluctant to admit he actually holds. Typical examples are when he bragged about being so worldly-wise and plugged in to the acid-rock music scene of Jethro Tull, while leaving himself a back door escape hatch to allow him to claim he really didn't drink the "Electric Beer" that was passed around under his nose - it was just an impression he wanted to convey. As well, he may know the law about what constitutes stalking, and he meticulously avoids any admission that might qualify as stalking, all the while attempting to create the (presumably false) impression that he's a rough, tough sonovabitch who can find anyone anywhere at any time, especially when he has to track down Ken in Tahiti.
My conclusion is that [Ted] is intelligent enough to understand exactly the point that Ken is making, and it chafes his triple-extra-large ass whether or not he admits it. Nobody, bar none, on Usenet grants him any credibility, and his poof-happy fingers on the KKK Blob feed into a compatibly-sized triple-extra-large case of cognitive dissonance. Holding [Ted] accountable to his own standards constitutes abuse, in [Ted's] opinion, so he can poof any post he wants, pretending to himself and to others that if a post is poofed, it never was there to begin with, and therefore he doesn't have to worry his poor, pumpkin-sized head over addressing those issues. But he's smart enough to know exactly what is going on, and exactly what bad karma is being dumped on him like a truck full of fertilizer emptied into a convertible Volkswagen Beetle. [blockquote]
Surely, you must have a credible response....
The only antidote to speech is more speech. In some cases, you will have to make concessions to sound credible. Make them. Focus on your best arguments, and flee from the bad ones. If you ever hope to make a difference in Cam's case, you have to argue intelligently, as opposed to reflexively.
More KKK Blog fun (this one probably won't last too long):
I was researching Craig Hum for an internship interview, and read about this site. Thank you for the background information. This case sounds interesting.
Craig Hum is said to be one of the best teachers around, and it seems from your complaints that he took Marc Geragos to school. I can't believe Marc is even letting you speak.
Ted, Ken is methodically and systematically taking you apart. He is making you look like an idiot.
I agree with Carla from the Southern California Law Blog.
You seem to be attacking EVERYONE personally, Ted. I have read your recent exchanges on usenet, and you appear to have nothing to offer in response to your opponents. Screaming over and over and over again that your foe is a convicted burglar or was denied a law license doesn’t have any bearing on whether your brother-in-law is innocent, or whether their arguments are valid.
Carla, Carol, Jeff, Tamara, Brittany, Jeff, Kent, Kayla. Many more. "There is so little info on it. I am a family law attorney in California and firmly believe Cameron Brown is guilty as hell." "I believe that he is guilty as hell, too." "I first want to say, that I totally agree, he's guilty as H - E - L - L! However, I'm not sure the jury is going to feel there's enough actual evidence to prove it beyond a responsible doubt and Gagme will finally have a win under his belt and a child murderer will walk free." "Gagamaggot. He's the biggest scene stealer this is, normally... He has NO talent as an attorney, he tries his cases in the MEDIA, but couldn't this time. " "My heart goes out to Sarah. She knows in her heart of heart this $astard did it, me too! I hope the jury does too. He would've had no other reason to take Lauren up there." You haven't persuaded anyone by attacking your opponents, and you probably won't. Those photographs won't help, especially if you need a red arrow to point yourself out.
You didn't even remember Lauren's birthday. Another blog did. How sad.
I'm looking forward to coming home for the summer. When's the re-trial? I'd love to get a chance to work on it.
Bernie C.
loretta said...
Oh, and I will slip that I have another theory.
I believe it is entirely possible that Geragos has dropped Brown as a client. This would explain the lack of moves by him to release his client on bail or move to dismiss, blah blah. Nobody has the ball, yet. It's possible the KKK are shopping for a new lawyer.
It would also explain why the KKK have been released from their gag order.
Best that you talk CG into stopping by the courthouse before you go out on a limb like that. We need to know what happened in the last hearing, and the only way to learn is to have someone peruse the file. Geragos really can't dump a client except for non-payment, and Daddy Warbucks has deep pockets.
Ted has completely lost it.
Ken Smith: On balance, your heavy-handed censorship hurts your case, ...
Ted: Not if it is you that we are censoring.
Fer chrissakes, Ted, you've already banned everybody else! Everyone is entitled to your point of view, eh, Comrade?
The only reason you've kept me around is because I have provided content; without me, this is nothing more than a "my gangsta brother/sister/husband wuz framed" site, of which there are thousands in the darkest recesses of the 'Net.
The Wayner's got you pegged:
My conclusion is that [Ted] is intelligent enough to understand exactly the point that Ken is making, and it chafes his triple-extra-large ass whether or not he admits it. Nobody, bar none, on Usenet grants him any credibility, and his poof-happy fingers on the KKK Blob feed into a compatibly-sized triple-extra-large case of cognitive dissonance. Holding [Ted] accountable to his own standards constitutes abuse, in [Ted's] opinion, so he can poof any post he wants, pretending to himself and to others that if a post is poofed, it never was there to begin with, and therefore he doesn't have to worry his poor, pumpkin-sized head over addressing those issues. But he's smart enough to know exactly what is going on, and exactly what bad karma is being dumped on him like a truck full of fertilizer emptied into a convertible Volkswagen Beetle.
And while you're at it, why don't you just admit that "anony" is Patty? Everyone's a sockpuppet, and everyone's in on the great evil RPV Conservancy Conspiracy -- bankrolled by Donald Trump. We're all angling for shots on The Apprentice! That's it! ROTFLMAO!!! You are absolutely losing it, dude.
Ted: Any reposts from USENET will be POOFED.
Since I haven't posted any and won't, there shouldn't be a problem. I'm still staying within your guidelines. These exchanges are from a blawg you ought to remember.
# Kayla Casey Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 10:05 am
I was wondering if it was true that he had attempted to murder her some times before. My friend and I know Lauren Sarene Key’s older brother. I heard some Intriguing information on the radio yesterday about the actions leading up to the hiking trip. They mentioned Cameron Brown wanting an abortion once finding out his lover was pregnant. After she refused he withdrew from lawrens life completely eccept for the small amout of child support. In what ways did he try to injure or murder her befor this hiking trip? And how can some of you say he is innocent?
# Barbara Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:23 am
That “free cameron” website doesn’t prove anything either. There were many more pictures of Scott and Laci Peterson smiling and looking happy and he still killed her. There were also plenty of people willing to write letters praising the wonderful and caring Scott Peterson but it still wouldn’t undo the fact that he’s a monster. Heck, I’m sure there are people that would have written letters praising the BTK killer if they didn’t have all the evidence and the confession that he is in fact a monster. It’s the actual evidence at the scene of the crime (including the autopsy report) and the testimony of the people who will be called that will determine his guilt (or innocence but that seems unlikely).
# Carol Says:
July 10th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I was a potential juror on this trial and I sat for days listening and watching that bastard Cameron Brown sit there - he is guilty as hell. He was damn lucky to have had such a classy lady such as Laurens mother to even be with - his white trash wife and family are pathetic and if he wants to have any chance at winning his case just by mere “reasonable doubt” which in my mind there is none, perhaps he ought to keep his “wife” out of the court room - Cameron Brown is a child killer an deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail with general population. So they can give him all that he desevres in pain and suffering. I had the opportunity to meet Laurens sweet and gentle mother - how dare Cameron take such a beautiful childs life away. The $1000 child support is far less than what Mark Gerrigos is charging I’m sure. The new Mrs. Brown must have sold all her clothes, car and everything to retain Mark Gerrigos, like who would want an attorney that his last client is sitting on Death Row. I actually think Mark Gerrigos is probably a good attorney and I found him rather fascinating and maybe just has chance of a hung jury would put him back on top … or maybe the publicity is what he is looking for. Cameron is pathetic and I wish the DA would have pushed for the detah penalty. Whoever this brotherinlaw is that is responding is as pathetic as Cameron, I know coworkers of Cam and they all agree he is a loser and selfish - how can he even look at himself in the mirror - I hope every guy in jail has gotten a piece of his ass. This trial has distrurbed me very much - who takes off their clothes before trying to rescue a child they love, why didn’t the bastard at least call Laurens mother to tell her about the accident. I pray he rots in hell. No matter what he IS responsbible for her death becuase he did not protect his baby girl from a dangerous situation. She cried before she went with him - she hated him he was mean to her. That website about FreeCambrown … or whatever it is - is a bunch of photos of only happy times. My daughter went with her father willingly once a week for 15 years and never carried on like that. Thuis webiste has me fired upa nd I wish Icoudl sit in on the trial every day - but unfortunately I have to work - GO TO HELL ALL YOU CAMERON BROWN SUPPORTERS - you have got to be kidding - I suppose you all think OJ was innocent too !
And then, there is Ted Kaldis himself:
As for his being found innocent being “unlikely” — sorry, no — not from where I’m sitting. There are things that I am not at liberty to divulge that tell me that the prosecutor has an INSURMOUNTABLE challenge ahead of him. Things will simply have to play out.
Once again, Ted "pulled a Geragos" [remember how he said he would prove that Scott Peterson was stone cold innocent?], promising the world but failing to deliver. And judging by the reaction on the 'Net, everyone who isn't a part of the Kaldis clan is convinced that Cam is guilty.
When you compare my comments to everyone else's, I am incredibly forgiving.
From the KKK Blog:
Not everyone is closed minded. Some of us want to know the facts from both sides.
We can't. Ted keeps censoring and banning anyone and everyone who challenges his view of the world.
This question got poofed:
Now, perhaps you will be kind enough to explain why you guys are still using Geragos when, by your claims, he committed a SERIOUS breach of ethics by not using the evidence that proves Cameron is innocent?
If you aren't willing, perhaps someone else could explain it to me. If I were charged with 1st degree murder, and there was evidence that PROVES I'm innocent, I certainly wouldn't be using the attorney that refused to present it at trial. As such, I can't think of any reason for you guy to retain Geragos' services.
After all, Ted promised we'd know by now: As for his being found innocent being “unlikely” — sorry, no — not from where I’m sitting. There are things that I am not at liberty to divulge that tell me that the prosecutor has an INSURMOUNTABLE challenge ahead of him. Things will simply have to play out.
Once again, Ted "pulled a Geragos" [remember how he said he would prove that Scott Peterson was stone cold innocent?], promising the world but failing to deliver. We'd all like some documented facts and credible explanations -- as opposed to Ted's endless stream of baseless innuendo and Pravda-class propaganda.
Ted: Any reposts from USENET will be POOFED.
Since I haven't posted any and won't, there shouldn't be a problem. I'm still staying within your guidelines. These exchanges are from another blog ... none-too-kind to Loretta, I might add. As our new friend RL wants to hear from both sides, this is presented as a public service.
The trial is still going on. I believe the prosecution has rested. As usual, Geragos is dragging it on longer than anticipated. The trial was supposed to be over by the middle of July, but Geragos' delay tactics have pushed it to middle of August. Now many of the jurors may not be able to stay until it is over, so a mis-trial might happen.
I hope there is no mistrial because of this - mainly because Geragos will consider it a win, walk away and let someone else do the 2nd. I wonder how much money he got for this.
Geragos is sure keeping a low profile on this case - can you imagine if he gets an acquittal?
The mainstream media didn't pick it up and I think it's partly because Geragos doesn't want us to! I think he's laying low until he ever gets a win after being disgraced on the Peterson case.
Of course MG tried to discredit one of the two witnesses by accusing him of being there to watch the people at the nude beach :doh: leave it to Markie!
One thing, the judge asked MG to stop yelling at him every time he didn't agree with his decisions
Since there is so little public information on this case, this blog could be one resource - but post there at your own risk. :croc: especially if you dare disagree with the common opinion.
Not being from the CA area, I had no idea what the landscape of Inspiration Point entailed, YIKES take a look! Absolutely not a place to take a small child unless harnessed and strapped in a parchute. What a hike that would have been, too much for me (I hate heights) and far too dangerous for children, especially without constant supervision.
How sad when I think of Lauren being there that day, and the evilness of her father, whether he had planned her demise or just being an a$$hole, however from what I have read about him, I'm leaning toward the former. Actually more than leaning.
I hope CB does take the stand, and as far as Geragos is concerned; I hope filthy a$$hole wife & baby killers continue to hire him so they will go to jail GUARANTEED!
Amen to that! :clap:
I agree with you Pepper, sitting here remembering his words while waiting for the emergency crew etc. totally devoid of any love or concern for Lauren. MG tried to persuade the jury, CB wasn't an emotional kind of guy, but a former girlfreind testified and swiftly debunked that version.
Testify? I hope he does, the P will cream him, but I would bet he doesn't get anywhere near the stand.
lol, just read that it's a loretta site. there seems to be some good info there though. I'll just not post.
I dont necessarily believe anything Loretta has on her site. She has a history of editing and adding her own words to other people posts etc. An 11th hour post on any site of Lorettas reeks of her attempting to validate herself. (Of course, this is Ted's M.O.)
Geragos presented his client merely lacked parenting skills--BullCrap! I could've easliy voted 2nd Degree Murder! Pretty much everyone could have.
I disagree with you Ken.
That potential juror is one reason why some of us have come to our senses and seek more information about this case. By her own admission she was not able to attend to much of the trial, yet she has all but sentenced Mr. Brown to death. Is that what the jury pool in Torrance looks like? I suspect the answer is "yes" since several of us had similar opinions before we started stepping back to think it through.
I am afraid it is. Still, my point (which was censored out, as pretty much anything and everything is that is inimical to Ted's cause manages to disappear at his earliest convenience) was that if we look at the "clear facts" -- those facts that cannot be reasonably disputed, and other bad facts even Ted concedes -- a juror could (and as that excerpt from Carol shows, most would) conclude that Cam was guilty of second-degree murder.
Your post helps me understand how important it is to take things with a grain of salt on both sides.
I am vehemently opposed to censorship, RL. I accept as an axiom that the antidote to speech is more speech. Let everyone have their say, and let the truth be distilled from the complete menu in the marketplace of ideas.
As for my position, I honestly don't care if Cam is acquitted or convicted; all I want to see is that he gets a fair trial. Everything Ted has been whining about should have been brought up in the first trial, and if Geragos were half-way competent, it would have been. Ted promised us that an "H-bomb" would be unleashed at trial ... but it looks to have been more of a Preparation-H-bomb, as Geragos didn't think enough of it to even take that club out of the bag. This whole saga has been one of Ted pulling an endless stream of Geragoses [you will remember his promise in the Peterson trial -- to prove that SP was stone cold innocent]: promising the world, and delivering nothing.
I say that if we know the truth and the whole truth -- and I've called for the release of the entire trial transcript by Ted, who claims to have it -- we will come to the right decision. I don't buy for a New York minute that release of a document which is supposed to be available to the public would in any way compromise the second trial. It makes precisely no sense, but if there were nuggets of material therein that would prove Cam's innocence, they should be made available now, so that public pressure can be brought to bear BEFORE a second trial ensues.
The second trial was supposed to have commenced in October. This delay is plainly wrong, but it is hard to complain ... because Cam keeps waiving his speedy trial rights.
I disagree with you Ken.
You know, RL, this bothers me not one whit. Unfortunately, there are some who cannot brook even the slightest disagreement. Some who would burn books, as opposed to reading them. There is a Nazi in every Ted, and was a Ted in every Nazi. From Raiders of the Lost Ark:
[to Indiana, while watching a Nazi parade and book burning] Professor Henry Jones: "My son, we're pilgrims in an unholy land."
I don't know if we will be able to continue to have discussion or at least, on this blog. I cordially invite you to visit http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com/, where free, fair, and respectful discussion is still possible.
[blather by pathological liar Kent Wills elided] --TK
Fine. I'll ask the same basic question: Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why you guys are still using Geragos when, if your claims are true, he committed a disbarrable breach of ethics by not presenting evidence proving Cam's innocence?
If you aren't willing, perhaps someone else could explain it to us all. If I was charged with murder, and evidence existed that PROVES my innocence, I certainly wouldn't be using the attorney that refused to present it at trial. As such, I can't think of any reason for you guys to retain Geragos' services. Another lawyer -- even a PD, if the evidence is really that good -- would be cheaper and better.
To quote Ted Kaldis, "As for his being found innocent being “unlikely” — sorry, no — not from where I’m sitting. There are things that I am not at liberty to divulge that tell me that the prosecutor has an INSURMOUNTABLE challenge ahead of him. Things will simply have to play out". Once again, you "pulled a Geragos" [remember how he said he would prove that Scott Peterson was stone cold innocent?], promising the world but failing to deliver.
It's your H-bomb, Ted. As Martin the Martian might say, "What happened to the earth-shattering KA-BOOM? There was supposed to have been an earth-shattering KA-BOOM."
The logical conclusion is that there isn't and never was an H-bomb, and that Ted is a pathological liar who has to ban himself. :)
From the KOOK blog:
Kent is the only one who is banned,
And yet I keep posting. Odd that.
[side note: If only Ted knew as much about the Internet as he claims, I wouldn't be posting. And no, I'm not using a proxy, or anonymizor to by-pass the ban]
and for reasons already stated.
I keep asking questions that you are unable to honestly answer.
I would honestly like to know why you are still using Geragos when, according to you, he unethically and illegally withheld evidence that proves Cameron is innocent? What possible motivation is there to use him anymore? I honestly can't think of any reason.
Kent Wills | 03.13.07 - 3:27 pm | #
I wonder how Ted "LSD" Kaldis will justify poofing this one.
Ken wrote [at the K00K blog]:
None of the jurors thought he was innocent. Fancy that!
To be fair, "innocent" is never an option for a jury. They can go with guilty of the primary charge, of a lesser included charge, or not guilty. Innocent isn't a choice.
Kent Wills | 03.13.07 - 3:32 pm | #
Of course MG tried to discredit one of the two witnesses by accusing him of being there to watch the people at the nude beach :doh: leave it to Markie!
A stupid move on Geragos' part, if true.
So what if the witness in question was there to develop masturbatory fantasy fodder? This doesn't limit his ability to tell the jury what he saw and/or heard.
And then, there is Ted Kaldis himself:
As for his being found innocent being “unlikely”
Actually, it's impossible for the reason I've stated above and on the K00K blog.
— sorry, no — not from where I’m sitting. There are things that I am not at liberty to divulge that tell me that the prosecutor has an INSURMOUNTABLE challenge ahead of him.
Wasn't a similar claim made before the first trial? Yet Hum was able to prove to a jury that Cameron was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The sole problem was that they couldn't agree on what crime Cameron had committed in regards to Lauren's death.
Things will simply have to play out.
Cameron will NEVER be found innocent. It's not even an option.
He may be found not guilty, but NEVER innocent. Right or wrong, he'll be viewed by society at large as a guy who got away with murder.
Justice delayed is justice denied. But, who among the KKK would care? Perhaps they were hoping for a worse prognosis for Sarah. Perhaps they are waiting for witnesses to forget; experts to find other gigs, Craig Hum to be made a judge or find other work.
Who knows?
I just know that it's the only strategy they have: delay, delay, delay.
Clearly, this is a mutual decision between Brown and his attorney. It doesn't cost GerEgo anything if Brown rots in jail in the meantime, and the only hope Brown has for an acquittal is to lose all the major witnesses against him.
Time is on Brown's side. So what if he has a yellow toothbrush for now - he may see the blue sky and hear the crashing surf again someday.
If they held the retrial today, he'd be sentenced to 25 to Life. What's another year in the joint compared to that? A minor inconvenience.
Ted: Ken Smith is asked to behave.
Please define "behave" with an adequate measure of precision. I honestly don't know what you mean when you use the term (or many terms, for that matter) -- and more importantly, when you will or will not exercise (or more accurately, abuse) your power. Based on your practice heretofore, it appears that your words mean exactly what you mean them to mean (which is often at odds with generally accepted dictionary definitions), and that those meanings change to achieve your desired end (to hide any and all evidence of your own censurable acts).
CI: Since no one here is privy to those legal details, I doubt you will ever have your ignorant questions answered.
Again, I don't know what you mean when you use words any more. Dictionary.com defines "ignorant" as:
[blockquote]1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training[/blockquote]
While you might in your anger and pique accuse me of many things, I don't think any of you would ever accuse me of being ignorant of the law of legal ethics. I'll re-ask the same basic question: Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why you guys are still using Geragos when, if your claims are true, he committed a disbarrable breach of ethics by not presenting evidence proving Cam's innocence?
If you aren't willing, perhaps someone else could explain it to us all. If I was charged with murder, and evidence existed that PROVES my innocence, I certainly wouldn't be using the attorney that refused to present it at trial. As such, I can't think of any reason for you guys to retain Geragos' services. Another lawyer -- even a PD, if the evidence is really that good -- would be cheaper and better.
To quote Ted Kaldis, "As for his being found innocent being “unlikely” — sorry, no — not from where I’m sitting. There are things that I am not at liberty to divulge that tell me that the prosecutor has an INSURMOUNTABLE challenge ahead of him. Things will simply have to play out". Once again, Ted "pulled a Geragos" [remember how he said he would prove that Scott Peterson was stone cold innocent?], promising the world but failing to deliver.
It's your H-bomb, Ted. As Martin the Martian might say, "What happened to the earth-shattering KA-BOOM? There was supposed to have been an earth-shattering KA-BOOM."
The logical conclusion is that there isn't and never was an H-bomb, and that Ted is a pathological liar who -- by his own stated standards -- has to ban himself. :)
I can only wonder if this post falls within the ambit of "not behaving":
Yes. Dr. Chinwah said the fall was an "assisted drop" because "this opinion is supported by a site visit with our pediatric consultant, law enforcement officers and Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner wherein it was observed that the terrain is rugged and it is not likely that a 4 year-old female would voluntarily hike there without experiencing fatigue."
That's presumptively true, based on my extensive experience as a hiker. You see the kids at the start of the trail, full of boundless energy ... but a half-mile later, Dad is invariably carrying them. How many of you could run 26 miles? How many of you could bike a century? Stamina develops with exercise; what seems impossible at first becomes relatively easy with time.
The notion that Lauren would still have enough energy to run around like a banshee at the end of a 1.5 mile hike after playing at the playground borders on the patently absurd, even if we assume that she took the easiest path possible. Again, this is one of the most difficult parts of your defense to sustain, as its underlying assumption is not particularly credible.
Ted: Hey, that's not my fault. The "H-bomb" evidence was -- and still is there, but Geragos chose not to play it (presumably because it has the potential of destroying someone's career).
A lawyer's responsibility is to his client. Period. If Geragos knowingly withheld evidence that would result in an acquittal, it is disbarrable conduct.
This is where you and I have never seen eye-to-eye, Ted. To me, "character" is what you do when it might actually cost you something. I don't have a moral code that excuses sins, like you do. For me, it has always been about doing what I perceive to be the right thing. I didn't fall on my sword for Hank Hanegraaff, even though it would have been the easy way out, and it might have been more effective in taking down Bob Larson. But it would have destroyed my personal credibility, which is why I knowingly refused the temptation.
I know my D.A. and worked for him in the precinct, but if I didn't present the evidence you say you have to protect him from certain professional ruin, I honestly couldn't look at myself in the mirror the next morning, knowing that I condemned a man who placed the ultimate trust in me to yet another year of hell. Maybe Jas. 4:17 means nothing to you ("Anyone who knows the good he should do but does it not, sins"), but that's just not how I'm wired. Yours is just not a credible answer, Ted.
To me, the statements of our Founding Fathers and other luminaries like Lincoln, Goldwater, and Reagan are not just flowery platitudes; they are words I endeavor to live by. If you don't understand that and can't, then you will never understand me. If I'm not going to walk the talk, I'm not going to talk the walk. And that's just how it is, whether for good or ill.
Who are the chiefs and who is the indian, indeed.
oh puhleeze.
Using one of GerEgo's favorite words, that's simply ludicrous.
Who's Ted trying to kid? Nobody with even a passing acquaintance with Collyforny trial law would buy that excuse for a second.
CI wrote [at the K00K blog]:
You are not welcome here, Kent.
[Isn't it interesting how I'm not welcome, yet no one there is able to actually keep me out? We're dealing with very STUPID (unable to learn) K00KS here.]
Seems anyone who dares to post anything beyond "Cameron is being framed!" is not welcome.
Since no one here is privy to those legal details, I doubt you will ever have your ignorant questions answered.
A question can not, in and of itself, be ignorant.
And since Ted and Patty are helping to foot the bill, they WILL know why Geragos is still being used.
Ted or Patty (posting annonymously) at the K00K blog:
It isn't an issue of fitness. Lauren ran ahead of Cam and he had to run after her. People with children understand that.
I can assure you that children start out with LOTS of energy, but it doesn't last. Take your average four-year-old on a mile and a half (approx.) hike and you'll be carrying that child before you get to the end.
Kent Wills | 03.14.07 - 5:04 pm | #
Ted wrote:
Hey, that's not my fault. The "H-bomb" evidence was -- and still is there, but Geragos chose not to play it (presumably because it has the potential of destroying someone's career).
[I meant to point out how Ted had claimed that Geragos didn't present the H-Bomb because he (Marc) didn't think it would be needed. Now Ted's changed his claim. Fairly standard for Ted. When one lies, as Ted is wont to do, one can't recall what they claimed.]
So he is willing to throw Cameron's life away to protect someone else's career? I don't know if that is legal (this is Southern Cali, so it probably is in practice), but it sure isn't ethical.
If what you report is true, Geragos does NOT have Cameron's best interests in mind. More reason to wonder why you, Patty, Bob, etc. are paying for this man's services.
Kent Wills | 03.14.07 - 5:07 pm | #
Ken said...
Ted: Ken Smith is asked to behave.
Please define "behave" with an adequate measure of precision.
From the TKTFD:
be·have
Pronunciation:
\bi-ˈhāv, bē-\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English behaven, from be- + haven to have, hold
Date: 15th century
1. To agree with Ted Kaldis in all things, no matter how insane.
The others over there are reasonable, but Ted just gets weirder and weirder by the day:
K: I'm interested in fixing the system, as opposed to simply being a spineless parasite.
Ted: And how do you propose to do that? From the outside looking in? And when you have a hard time convincing some that any injustice has even taken place?
I have very little difficulty convincing people who don't have an agenda that an injustice has taken place, although it takes a reasonably capable brain to get your head around the concept that no one should be judge in his own cause. [Lord Coke gave us that rule of law in Dr Bonham's Case four hundred years ago.] However, when I meet up with a non-matinee-idol Craig Hum like you, who is rapaciously competitive, stubborn as all get-out, and incapable of ever publicly admitting a mistake, persuasion is not really an option. "You can tell the Dutch, but you can't tell the Dutch much." You'd gnaw your arm off rather than concede a point -- and you have always been that way.
Ted: I am reminded of an old Paper Chase episode....
Get your head in the real world, Ted! First and foremost, you presuppose that I could actually be effective inside the system; even if they deigned to let me in the Club on their terms, I would get the yellow toothbrush treatment from here to eternity. Second, have you ever heard of a fellow named Robert Bork? I quote him quite frequently, especially in legal briefs. He called the state of affairs we are now in a "judicial coup d'etat," and with good cause. He is the consummate insider, but has he managed to deflect the course of affairs in even the slightest degree? As an agent of change, I probably have more power on the outside than I would have on the inside. Besides, as an outsider, they can't regulate or sanction me into submission.
And your sanity isn't being questioned for challenging what happened to you, but rather for how you are challengiing it.
If I am, I am in rather honorable company. Ever heard of William Wilberforce?
[blockquote]The economic forces marshalled against Wilberforce took pleasure in not just frustrating his project but also flushing his career down the toilet. Once seen as a future Prime Minister William Wilberforce was transformed into a 'nutter'. Such was the force of malice aimed at him even John Wesley advised Wilberforce, unless he had a direct telegram from baby Jesus asking him to lead the fight against slavery, he should give up before he became a grease stain.[/blockquote]
Let's face it, Ted: If I am merely crazy, you are downright rabid. After all, last time I looked, you weren't doing any better with your "poor widdle Cammie" blog. Forty months in the hole is a very long time. There are thousands of these sites like this on the 'Net, and they have minimal net effect. Puh-leeeeeze! And as for Geragos, he played within the system, and assuming what you have been telling me here is true, he got run over like a deer in the friggin' headlights. Until you can show some successes, you shouldn't be criticizing others for at least trying to fight the good fight.
Ted, you will never understand me, because the concept of altruism doesn't register. It's always about you. "MY sister!" "MY brother-in-law!" "ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! MEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!" So, where is that Maybach you were supposed to be driving on account of what you were going to make off of this saga? That was the extent of your parasitic and ME-opic vision.
I might yet be beaten, Ted, but I will never be defeated. For I will have fought the good fight, and I have no reason to hang my head in shame. You, on the other hand, have some serious karma to work out, and some painful lessons to learn.
[blockquote]"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." [Samuel Adams][/blockquote]
Finally, "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it." –Martin Luther King, Jr.
I reject your counsel in utter disgust, Ted. If I were to be candid in the depths of my feelings about it, you would certainly censor me for being "overly abusive" -- even though it would not be sufficiently abusive.
Loretta wrote:
Who's Ted trying to kid? Nobody with even a passing acquaintance with Collyforny trial law would buy that excuse for a second.
My knowledge of California law is limited. What I do know of it comes mostly from OJ, Peterson and Brown. I've studied more as a result of Cameron's case, since I'm more observant than I was with the other two.
That being pointed out, I think The Princess could spot the flaw in Ted's claim. Geragos isn't going to risk his own career (withholding evidence is a disbarable[1] offense) by keeping the H-Bomb a secret. Even if we pretend Geragos is such a [jerk] (I have another word in mind, but will use jerk) that he doesn't care that defusing the H-Bomb will surely land Cameron life in prison, he is going to care about his own life.
Getting disbarred will ruin life as he knows it, and since no one else is willing to take action, I will.
After I post this, I will fax copies of everything Ted has claimed about the H-Bomb, including Geragos' willful refusal to present it at trial, to the DA's office, and, if I can find the fax number, the ethics comity and the California Bar Association.
I believe Cameron deserves a fair trial above all else. Unless Ted, et al., have been lying to us, it's clear Marc Geragos isn't willing to allow Cameron to have a fair trial.
[1] I'm not sure that's really a word. If not, I do hope you understand what I mean.
H Bomb evidence that would ruin someone's career (like who??) but would free his client by proving his innocence, and he didn't use it.
Yeah. Right.
About as credible as the first excuse that he didn't feel he needed it.
How about the truth? It didn't exist. Admit it.
Loretta -- You Go, Girl!!!
California has an integrated Bar, which means that complaints are sent to them directly. Call 213-765-1200 for directions on how to submit the documentation.
Oops! My mistake. That's Kent. Go for it, Man!
Posted to the other blog:
It's "raise or call," guys. The same Kent Wills you have treated so shabbily is about to force you to harvest your own bad karma. From the other blog:
[blockquote]That being pointed out, I think The Princess could spot the flaw in Ted's claim. Geragos isn't going to risk his own career (withholding evidence is a disbarable[1] offense) by keeping the H-Bomb a secret. Even if we pretend Geragos is such a [jerk] (I have another word in mind, but will use jerk) that he doesn't care that defusing the H-Bomb will surely land Cameron life in prison, he is going to care about his own life.
Getting disbarred will ruin life as he knows it, and since no one else is willing to take action, I will.
After I post this, I will fax copies of everything Ted has claimed about the H-Bomb, including Geragos' willful refusal to present it at trial, to the DA's office, and, if I can find the fax number, the ethics comity and the California Bar Association.
I believe Cameron deserves a fair trial above all else. Unless Ted, et al., have been lying to us, it's clear Marc Geragos isn't willing to allow Cameron to have a fair trial.[/blockquote]
Kent is quite net-savvy, and he's already had an evening's head start. And no matter how this fleshes out, someone is going to have some 'splainin' to do.
I can't even begin to impress upon you the paramount importance of an attorney's loyalty to his client. An attorney's "duty of loyalty to the client means the attorney "should always remember that the decision whether to forego legally available objectives or methods because of non-legal factors is ultimately for the client ...."" People v. Lang, 49 Cal. 3d 991, 1031, 782 P.2d 627 (Cal. 1989) (quoting ABA Model Code Prof. Responsibility, EC 7-8). The ONLY way Geragos could decline use of your "H-bomb" is with Cam's knowing consent -- and you are never going to convince me that Cam knowingly consented to another year in jail and the bearing of the crushing cost of a second trial to save a prosecutor's career. If this H-bomb exists, Geragos ought to be disbarred ... and if there were a just God -- considering what Cam has already endured -- drawing and quartering would not be out of the question.
Bottom line, guys, if this H-bomb exists, Kent is going to detonate it in Geragos' face. He will get a call in a month or two from the CalBar and/or the Ninth Circuit, and he will be called upon to give an account of himself. And I guarantee that if this H-bomb doesn't exist, Geragos will be furious -- and if he already told you in no uncertain terms to shut up about this case, he would probably be within his rights to withdraw his representation.
I rather expect the dissembling to start any minute.... :)
Ted would make a horrible poker player. I call his bluff each and every time he makes one. He never even has the courage to show his hand.
I hope Kent really does go through with this, because it's about time someone made Ted accountable. It's the sociopathy of not thinking anything will happen.
He is long overdue for some really embarrassing consequences.
It didn't take long. :) Here's my post to the other blog:
[My prediction (see the other blog) was remarkably accurate.]
Ted: Anyway, from what I understand, Geragos certainly intended to "deploy" this "H-bomb", and for all we know was precluded from doing so by the judge.
You just can't seem to keep your lies straight, compadre! Before, you solemnly assured us that he chose not to deploy it, as opposed to being precluded from doing so by the judge. Something about his not wanting to damage someone else's career, if I recall correctly (I'm sure Kent has all the hard copies in his possession by now).
As the sage used to put it, "Pick a lane, Ted!"
Ted: And I fully expect you to harp (with glee) that it must therefore not have been relevant.
Even though you have done so, I can find no "glee" in a judicial decision that reeks of manifest injustice. Webster put it this way:
[blockquote]The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven.[/blockquote]
That having been said, there is and can be no excuse for an attorney's willful refusal to present evidence that would exonerate his client, as YOU fraudulently led us to believe had occurred.
As to its "relevance," knowing your tenuous relationship to the truth, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised that the material you speak of is legally irrelevant, but that is beside the point. Please do us all a favor and stop lying.
Ted: On the outside chance -- nay, on the virtually nonexistent chance -- that Kent follows through, both the California Bar and the 9th Circuit will toss Kent's "complaint" right into the wastebasket -- where it belongs.
Little late for the bluster, Ted. Of course, we know that all Geragos has to say is that Ted Kaldis is a sociopath, and refer them to USENET, and that will be the end of it. :)
We called your bluff, and you have a 2-8. We can discern from your admission that the "H-bomb" is not legally relevant if it even exists, and that Geragos admitted it by not trying to introduce it (as he knows that he would be subject to Rule 11 sanctions (or the CA equivalent).
Ted: Psuh. A garage burglar on probation in Iowa is going to take on one of the premier Los Angeles lawyers ... or rather says that he is going to.
And here, I thought we were talking about Mark Geragos! Ann Coulter writes:
[blockquote] Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They should advertise exclusively on MSNBC. Maybe they could even get Al Gore to endorse them and hire Howard Dean as their spokesman. Our motto: "A HUMILIATING DEFEAT EVERY TIME – OR YOUR MONEY BACK!" ...
At least Shrum's client only has to go back to the Senate. Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death.
This came as no surprise to those who have followed the fate of Geragos' other hapless clients throughout the years. (Or, to be fair, the evidence against Peterson.) Among Geragos' clients are:
* Clinton crony Susan McDougal: spent 18 months in federal prison. In his defense, at least Geragos didn't get Susan McDougal the death penalty. Any additional damage Geragos could do to McDougal's case was nullified when Clinton granted her a presidential pardon hours before he left office. As Susan McDougal assured New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in 1997, Clinton would never pardon her: "He's not going to wake up one day and confer it on me." As to how McDougal knows the way Bill Clinton behaves when he first wakes up in the morning, I'll leave that to your imagination.
* Gary Condit: suspected (but never accused!) of involvement in Chandra Levy's disappearance. Condit was never charged with any crime. But he hired Geragos to manage a media campaign to defend his reputation. The next thing Condit knew, he was kissing his 30-year political career goodbye when he lost to his Democratic primary opponent by a whopping 18 points. Or as the kids are saying these days, Condit got "shrummed" by 18 points. The only way Condit could have lost by a bigger margin would be if Bob Shrum had managed his campaign.
* Winona Ryder: convicted of grand theft. Instead of having her throw herself on the state's mercy and beg for a plea bargain, Geragos took the case to trial, where the jury had to balance a videotape of Ryder caught in the act of stealing against Geragos' argument that the store security guards were mean to her. (If there was any more to the defense's theory, I missed it.) Geragos boasts that he won a sentence of only community service and probation for Ryder. That might be something to crow about if the prosecutor had asked for anything more than ... community service and probation.
* Michael Jackson: fired Geragos almost immediately after hiring him. Jackson has sterile facial masks that lasted longer than this guy. I guess he figured, hey, it's no skin off my nose. As we go to press, Jackson remains a free man.
And now Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been convicted of first- and second-degree murder in a trial that I believe began sometime in the '80s – which is good because you can always catch the trial highlights on VH1's "I Love the '80s."
The only reason to hire Mark Geragos is if the only other attorney left on Earth is Mickey Sherman, aka the "Mark Geragos of the East Coast." And that's only if Long Island gunman Colin Ferguson, who famously represented himself at trial, is not taking new clients.
But even Geragos and Sherman would never sneeringly dismiss evidence in a murder trial as "circumstantial evidence." Only nonlawyers who imagine they are learning about law from "Court TV" think "circumstantial evidence" means "paltry evidence." After leaping for the channel clicker for six months whenever the name "Scott Peterson" wafted from the television (on the grounds that in a country of 300 million people, some men will kill their wives), I offer this as my sole contribution to the endless national discussion.
In a murder case, all evidence of guilt other than eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial." Inasmuch as most murders do not occur at Grand Central Terminal during rush hour, it is not an uncommon occurrence to have murder convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is "circumstantial evidence." Fingerprints are "circumstantial evidence." An eyewitness account of the perpetrator fleeing the scene of a stabbing with a bloody knife is "circumstantial evidence." Please stop referring to "circumstantial evidence" as if it doesn't count. There's a name for people who take a dim view of circumstantial evidence because they don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence: They're called "O.J. jurors."[/blockquote]
Oppps! This is a circumstantial evidence case, isn't it, Ted?
Oh, heck. I think Ted tipped his hand a long time ago. He is incapable of really keeping anything a secret. He probably considered the potential that Patty and Cam were going for full custody as "H-bomb class" evidence.
He probably thought that would demonstrate that they were interested in raising Lauren. However, that doesn't take into account the fact that if they filed that kind of paperwork (and that was not made evident), it would not prove anything at all.
I believe that his H-bomb class evidence was something he already revealed in his prolific and redundant (and often ridiculous --- err, 'ludicrous') Usenet posts.
Ted: I have had to delete another post by Ken Smith, as Ken has yet again (same old story) failed to maintain a civil tone.
Again, I haven't a clue as to what qualifies as "maintain[ing] a civil tone" in the Tedlish. It seems to preclude me from calling you a liar, even when I demonstrate that you are a liar. However, it does not preclude you from libeling Kent Wills, even though you are indisputably on notice that the statements you are making about him are probably false. As I said, if that opinion were accurate, Kent would have been in the "House of the Yellow Toothbrush" for quite some time.
Again, kindly explain to me how, assuming here that "civil" means "adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy," the following post in blockquote does not meet the standard of "maintaining a civil tone":[blockquote]
[My prediction (see the other blog) was remarkably accurate.]
Ted: Anyway, from what I understand, Geragos certainly intended to "deploy" this "H-bomb", and for all we know was precluded from doing so by the judge.
You just can't seem to keep your lies straight, compadre! Before, you solemnly assured us that he chose not to deploy it, as opposed to being precluded from doing so by the judge. Something about his not wanting to damage someone else's career, if I recall correctly (I'm sure Kent has all the hard copies in his possession by now).
As the sage used to put it, "Pick a lane, Ted!"
Ted: And I fully expect you to harp (with glee) that it must therefore not have been relevant.
Even though you have done so, I can find no "glee" in a judicial decision that reeks of manifest injustice. Webster put it this way:
[blockquote]The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven.[/blockquote]
That having been said, there is and can be no excuse for an attorney's willful refusal to present evidence that would exonerate his client, as YOU fraudulently led us to believe had occurred.
As to its "relevance," knowing your tenuous relationship to the truth, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised that the material you speak of is legally irrelevant, but that is beside the point. Please do us all a favor and stop lying.
[/blockquote]
You are a compulsive liar, and have been caught out more times than I care to count. Is there a more "polite" euphemism you would like me to use?
K: Besides, if the other side has the 'juice' you say they do, ...
T: What "juice" do they have? Their tenuous case is built on a house of cards. It depends on having a particular kind of judge, a particular kind of juror, and most importantly, the sort of prosecutor skilled enough to sway aforementioned "particular kind of juror" with histrionics and emotional appeal. And yet even with all that, the best they were able to muster was a mistrial.
10-2 is as close to a conviction as you can get without getting striped. As I said, if the judge really wanted a conviction, he would have gotten one by threatening to keep the jurors into the Labor Day weekend.
Ted: Take away even one of the above, and the house of cards collapses.
Let's see, now. They got a very capable prosecutor in Hum, who apparently wiped the floor with Geragos. They got the jury they wanted (another Geragos failure?), and will probably get pretty much the same one again. The judge knows what's coming, and if he wants to put his fingers on the scales of justice, he is going to have lots of warning as to how to defuse MGs responses. The "histrionics" are as likely to work the second time as they were the first, especially in light of the impact John and Ken had on public perception. And if this case goes to appeal, there is a lot of juridicial inertia to overcome, not the least of which is the fact that 90% of CA appellate decisions are unpublished, and most are of abysmally poor quality. Add that to the spectacular latitude granted to the trial court as to what evidence is or is not to be let in, and their "cards" are good enough that you had better take this game quite seriously.
At best, you've got a 50-50 chance of acquittal, and a decent chance of a mistrial. I don't think they'd need the juice, but if the powers-that-be you allude to do have that kind of influence, a bad situation is even worse for Cam. Did you read the LA Times expose on Vegas courts?
ken said...
Oops! My mistake. That's Kent. Go for it, Man!
I don't think Loretta and I look all that much alike :)
I faxed the DA's office last night, since I already had the number. During lunch I looked up
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10179
where I got some contact information. If Ted has been honest, Geragos is in A LOT of trouble. Violation of rules such as Rule 5-220 (just *one* rule Ted claims Geragos violated) are not to be tolerated.
If Ted has been lying, he'll have some explaining to do to Geragos.
From the K00K blog:
Ted: Psuh. A garage burglar on probation in Iowa
Figure out where I live, Ted. Am I in Iowa, as you now claim, or Arkansas, as you claimed before. I have to file my state taxes, and need to know which state :)
[Actually, we already did our taxes -- OUCH! We had to pull everything out of our Roth IRAs because we went over the income limit. Ken will have some idea what that means]
is going to take on one of the premier Los Angeles lawyers ... or rather says that he is going to.
I'm not going to take him on. I have no interest in taking him on.
I am going to do what ever I can to ensure Cameron gets a fair trial. Since you aren't willing to hold Marc Geragos accountable for failing to introduce evidence that in some way proves Cameron innocent, someone else must. I have taken it upon myself to be that someone.
If you lied about all aspects of the H-Bomb, as is most likely, then you'll have to explain to Geragos exactly why you did so.
If you told the truth about Geragos willfully withholding exculpatory evidence from the jury, he'll have to explain his reasoning to the bar and possibly the ethics board.
You can come clean and admit you lied, but it won't help now. The DA's office is aware of your claims. And I have the contact information for the California Bar. They will be getting copies as well.
YMCA wrote:
* Winona Ryder: convicted of grand theft. Instead of having her throw herself on the state's mercy and beg for a plea bargain, Geragos took the case to trial,
Actually, it would have ultimately been Winona's decision.
where the jury had to balance a videotape of Ryder caught in the act of stealing against Geragos' argument that the store security guards were mean to her. (If there was any more to the defense's theory, I missed it.)
Team Winona originally claimed Winona's assistant was supposed to pay for the items. A mea culpa from the assistant, and a Not Guilty verdict was at least possible.
They dropped that in favor of "Winona was doing research for a possible film role." As it turns out, she was up for a role in which the character did shoplift something, however, that wouldn't (and didn't) excuse her shoplifting.
Geragos boasts that he won a sentence of only community service and probation for Ryder. That might be something to crow about if the prosecutor had asked for anything more than ... community service and probation.
Way to go Marc! :-)
* Michael Jackson: fired Geragos almost immediately after hiring him.
Smart move on Jackson's part.
Jackson has sterile facial masks that lasted longer than this guy. I guess he figured, hey, it's no skin off my nose. As we go to press, Jackson remains a free man.
And, legally speaking, he is innocent. Very few truly believe he is, but unless/until new charges are filed, no one can legally do anything to him.
Ted: Anyway, from what I understand, Geragos certainly intended to "deploy" this "H-bomb", and for all we know was precluded from doing so by the judge.
So first you claimed he didn't deploy it because he didn't think it would be needed.
Then you claim he didn't deploy it because it could ruin someone's career.
NOW you don't seem to have any idea, but it may have been blocked by the judge.
Why don't you pick a lie and stick with it, Ted?
Wayne wrote:
6) There isn't any "H-Bomb" evidence at all, and Kent's efforts would only publicly humiliate Ted even more than he already is. It's just something Geragos told Ted in order to keep his hopes up (and the money flowing).
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a (probable)winner!
I don't think Geragos ever told Ted any such thing.
When Ted first made the claim, he suspected Hum was, at the very least, glancing at misc.legal to see what he might glean of the defense strategy.
Ted claimed there was this H-Bomb in hopes that Hum would believe it and drop the charges faster than a cannonball off a skyscraper (That's pretty fast, BTW)
It didn't work, of course. And deep down, Ted has to know it wouldn't, but to be fair, Ted wasn't out much for trying.
Yes, it damaged Ted's credibility, but since he had zero when he made the claim, he didn't have to worry.
Posted at the K00K blog (but Ted will POOF it soon enough since he doesn't like honesty)
A screen cap of the post, in case they try to claim I never made it, can be seen here:
http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/images/comment001.jpg
I've taken the liberty to make Ted's, or Patty's (I don't know which is CI, though I suspect Patty) comment to more accurately reflect what is most probable.
OMG, this is hilarious! Really, can you imagine how this is going to play out?
Yes, I can. Ted is going to have to explain to Geragos why he lied about the existence of the H-bomb class evidence, then claimed Geragos committed an offense that can get his disbarred by refusing to present it.
If Ted told the truth when he informed all of us that Marc sat on the evidence, then Marc is going to have to explain why he did it and why he refused to do all he could to ensure his "innocent" client was set free.
Kent to the Bar: Gentlemen, I understand Mr. Geragos has H-bomb class information which he has [according to Ted, REFUSED] to use to support his client's defense! Grrrr!
Bar to Kent: And what exactly is that H-bomb you are talking about?
Kent to Bar: I don't know. [I only know Ted first claimed Geragos refused to use it because he (Geragos) didn't think it would be needed. An indirect violation of Rule 3-110 (a) and a DIRECT violation of Rule 5-220.]
[Ted then claimed Geragos refused to present it (still in DIRECT violation of Rule 5-220) because it could harm someone's career.]
Bar to Kent: [We will investigate as required under statute!]
BTW, the Bar doesn't need to speak with me. All I need to do is send a letter with supporting documentation and the complaint form. I dropped said letter off at the post office earlier this evening.
Kent Wills | 03.15.07 - 7:52 pm | #
[Re: Mark Arnold's reversal rate]
K: Not that often or at least, not more often than most judges. I seem to recall a half-dozen cases or so, but it really wasn't that many.
A: You recall wrong. Judge Arnold holds the record in LA County. It is considerably more than most judges.
My stats (according to Versuslaw, with the parameters "Mark S. Arnold w/10 affirmed" and "w/10 reversed") are 71 affirmances, 7 reversals, and 7 partials. The nationwide average reversal rate upon appeal is about 18-20%; while I didn't examine every affirmance, every random entry I did read looks something like this:"APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA048279)" Based on that record, your statement is quite obviously false.
But then again, we've gotten used to you smearing everyone associated with the prosecution of this case, often on the wildest speculation. Craig Hum, running for office? Easily proven as false, and so easily proven that if you were the slightest bit responsible, you would have checked it out for yourself, Ted. Again, if you have any legitimate gripes, they are so lost in the fog of innuendo and speculation you have generated that the only hope we have is to stumble upon them.
Out of the 78 reported cases, only three were published. The rest were by these drive-by-night monstrosities otherwise known as "unpublished" (technically, they are non-precedential) opinions. If you lose at trial, you have about a 1-in-25 chance of even getting your appeal considered by a real judge, and unless the foul is so obvious that a first-year law student can spot it immediately, it's not going to get overturned. Here's an exchange from a real trial (you'd never see it in CA, as attorneys are specifically prohibited from citing unpublished opinions):
[blockquote]THE COURT: At a conference of the Third Circuit, the Court of Appeals defended their unpublished opinions on the ground that they’re not well reasoned, they don’t give them much thought. So it’s hard to say that that’s a well-reasoned opinion that has any precedential value.
MR. WINEBRAKE: Well, we concede—
THE COURT: It’s instructive on what they’ll do without much thought.[/blockquote]
What they will do "without much thought" is dismiss your appeal.
Ted seems to think I am daft for challenging the constitutionality of this practice, which is why it is so delicious that Cam's very freedom may one day depend on my success or failure.
CI: I should have added, I agree about the legal gamesmanship,
I haven't seen any credible evidence of legal gamesmanship in this case that truly qualifies as out of the ordinary. Most of the fouls called here against Craig Hum are of the nature of calls you'd see from the inebriated fans in the South Stands at a Denver Broncos game: The Broncos never hold, but da hated Raiders commit at least two personal fouls when they walk on the field.
If Sarah was the one on trial, Ted in particular would be singing the praises of Hum, as evidenced by his long history on USENET. To him in particular, what he likes is "constitutional," and what he doesn't is nekkid judicial activism. We hear all these whispers of conspiracy and collusion, but we never see any evidence that one exists, or that there would be a rational motive for the system to single out this poor, innocent modern stevedore for persecution (as opposed to prosecution). Sadly, there have been more 'false alarms' than you see on a typical Saturday night in a college dorm.
but from our point of view we feel somewhat reluctant to give too much away because there are so many efforts to circumvent Cam's ability to be judged fairly.
Including suppression of the trial transcript, which is public record and which Craig Hum has full and unfettered access to? Again, nonsense on stilts.
We do not want to do anything that might negatively impact on what the attorneys need to do, and we are not a part of the decision making process, in spite of what Ken, Kent and others might like to believe.
No, it's more like Ted wants people to believe. You are the ones throwing around all these super sekrit conspiracy theories, rumors of H-bombs, and other legal WMD. Unfortunately, you can never tell what new lie Team Cam will tell today. The official Team Cam line on the H-bomb was that Geragos "was not up to exposing something that could get another lawyer disbarred - even one as sleazy as Hum" -- until it was pointed out that failure to expose it could get him disbarred -- and then, the frantic dissembling commenced. It is reminiscent of Ted's bragging that he downed a little "electric beer" (i.o.w., laced with LSD), which stopped instantly when I pointed out that LSD is forever. :)
I'd like to clear away the fog and get some truth out of these people on a consistent basis, but Ted in particular is about as honest as a married politician caught walking out of a brothel.
Having been to Inspiration Point and walked throughout the area, I have a clear view of what probably happened that day. Cam needed help and Cam called for it. He also took the most immediate path to find Lauren. Once he discovered that you can not go around the front of the point, he had to go back on top and toward the main road in order to find a way down to Lauren.
Whereas, Craig Hum pointed out that Cam conveniently made certain that he didn't have his cell that day. There are a lot of facts in this case that do point to murder, which is why this case went to trial in the first place. But you'll never get that admission here.
This accident was tragic, and I am sure it will give all of us cause to be thankful our lives have not been so tragically impacted by a moment where things just went wrong. I sincerely pray for justice in this case because I am convinced Cam did not do anything to cause his beautiful daughter's death.
I call for a fair trial in this and EVERY case (unlike certain members of Team Cam), and while I am persuaded on the basis of the evidence I have been made privy to that it is more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren (in the beginning, Team Cam would never call Lauren by name -- just as Geragos did at trial, with the conscious purpose of dehumanizing her -- until it was pointed out to them that that was what they were doing), I place faith in the jury's ability to do the right thing. If the system works the way it is designed (and it rarely does), the chance of an error are small.
K: I haven't seen any credible evidence of legal gamesmanship in this case that truly qualifies as out of the ordinary.
T: CI is privy to things you are not.
In legal gamesmanship which is not out of the ordinary no one would gasp and say, "He could be disbarred for that," as has been the case here.
So, why haven't you filed a complaint with the CalBar? Hmmmmmm? Kent did. 8)
The only alleged legal gamesmanship you have revealed (and as always, you have backtracked) would warrant Geragos' disbarment (don't forget that the 995 motion was legally frivolous). I'm not persuaded that any of you know enough about the law of legal ethics to even begin to offer a vaguely intelligible opinion as to whether Craig Hum has committed any such breach.
Basically, your jurisprudence comes down to "What I don't like is unfair, and what I do is."
Ken Smith wrote: which is why it is so delicious that Cam's very freedom may one day depend on my success or failure.
Ted: Please come down to earth. You think far too highly of yourself.
Get a CLUE, dude! If what you claim is true, and Judge Arnold wants Cam in orange for the rest of his life, his sorry arse is Bubba's. Arnold has been on the bench a long time; he's had hundreds of his decisions appealed, and he's batting about 85%. He knows where the line is really drawn, and he knows (a) how close he can get to the line without being overturned and (b) that he has nothing to lose from crossing the line. The second trial is likely to be a carbon copy of the first, except that Geragos will be on an even shorter leash, and Hayes will be smart enough to not bring his notes. Arnold can bend the system around Cam's neck. You'll get the same jury, more or less -- except that you were lucky last time, and might not get the same stubborn SOBs that saved Cam's tail. If your "H-bomb" was kept out of the first trial on grounds of irrelevance (this has to be your third or fourth explanation for why it hasn't been dropped), it will be kept out of the second. 'Bootstrap Bill' may contribute a surprise or two, but everybody knows the script.
If what you say about Arnold is true, a conviction is more likely than not and then, you will have to appeal. Back in the days when judges wrote all their opinions, the appellate success rate was over 40%; now, it's closer to 15-20%, and appeals of Arnold decisions are even less successful. Since this isn't a death penalty case, few will be watching. And unless the fouls in question are obviously egregious -- and Arnold is savvy enough to not let that happen -- Cam's appeal will be decided by some law clerk straight out of Western State, and the decision will be affirmed. The reason, in a nutshell? "Harmless error."
If you're not thoroughly appalled, you're not paying attention.
While I would be just as happy as you would to have Erwin Chemerinsky, Marci Hamilton, or a senior partner at Baker and Botts arguing my case against unpublished opinions, all you have is me. And admittedly, that might not be enough. Attorney Ken Schmier tried in California and the Ninth Circuit -- and failed.
Let's understand the ramifications of my success or failure. If I succeed, the present system -- where recent graduates from fourth-tier schools like Western State decide these "junk appeals," without any semblance of true judicial review -- there is a very good chance that Cam's appeal will be one of those that falls through the cracks. As many as 60% of meritorious appeals die in the California Court of Appeals' legal triage unit (based on the drop in successful appeal rates). And if, as you suggest, powerful interests have a hand in this case, you can rest assured that they have the "juice" to push Cam's appeal into the triage bin.
It's not ego, Ted; it's cold, hard reality. The system we have renders the Constitution inert, and a ruling that the practice of issuing these "junk opinions" violates the Due Process and/or Equal Protection Clauses might well be the difference between whether Cam spends the rest of his life with Patty or Bubba.
But should we give up, because the task is too great? If you say yes, buy Bubba that bouquet -- it's not too late.
Ken, don't let the facts stand in the way of your very obvious agenda.
And what, pray tell, is my "obvious agenda?" Do you even have a clue as to what I have and have not been up to?
But let's just review a few of the facts we have brought out.
The prosecutor said Cam lied about calling Patty because the telephone at the upper parking lot did not show evidence of such a call. Truth....he used the phone in the lower parking lot (by the beach), a phone the prosecution didn't know about but Smith and Leslie did. AND....Patty received the phone call!
Did this get into the record? I thought Danny Smith didn't even testify, and you can't say what he knew or didn't know without putting him on the stand. Since neither Cam nor Patty testified, the only way of knowing that the call was placed would be from the telephone records. Were they introduced into evidence? Did Geragos receive this information from Hum, or was it uncovered by your own investigation? Did Leslie testify that he knew about the phone?
It's tough to hang the prosecutor for not knowing every fact of the case, given how many cases he prosecutes. I don't see this as a mortal sin, because Geragos was there to correct any clear misrepresentations for the jury.
Jessica Brothers said that Cam told her he and Lauren were on a sloped 40% piece of shale where he sat on a non-existent rock as Lauren ran around him throwing rocks.
Ted tells me a lot of things that, upon later investigation, aren't true. What Cam told Jessica can only be known by Cam and Jessica, and Cam didn't testify. How do you know what Cam did or didn't tell her? If you have first-hand knowledge of what Cam said, I'm sure the D.A. would like to talk with you.
Hayes stated that Cam would not have fallen as he threw Lauren due to Newton's Law of Motion, nor would Lauren have fallen as she threw rocks from the sloped area. In reality, Hayes was trying to fill in the blanks by actually assuming that Lauren was running around that sloped area. Every single test that was done and videoed by Hayes showed this was not true.
I tried this at home on a retaining wall with a bowling ball, and found that I had no difficulty in maintaining my balance. I am persuaded as to the basic soundness of Hayes' science.
The prosecutor wants us to believe that Cam was wasting time by calling for help when in reality any other choice he made would have delayed or made a call for help impossible.
That 9-1-1 call was incredibly damning. It conveyed some brutal facts, including demeanor. No more need be said there.
The prosecution wants us to believe that wounds inflicted on Lauren through her clothing had no significance!
Under our system, the prosecutor is entitled to interpret the facts in a manner most favorable to a conviction. Without completely re-working our system, as long as he argues in good faith (and yes, he is entitled to see the facts differently than you), he can make that statement. Disabusing the jury of that notion is Geragos' job.
The prosecutor wants us to believe that Lauren's shoe was lost as she was thrown through thin air.
And here, I thought you were a surfer babe, CI! I've spent enough time getting bashed around by surf to know that clothing can fall off (I have had my shorts pulled down to my knees once or twice), and it can be like being in a washing machine. If the shoe wasn't tied on that tightly (not that four-year-olds are especially competent in that regard), I can see how readily it could have been removed, either by the impact or the surf. I don't think we can read anything into the loss of her shoe, and I don't think the prosecutor is bound by your tendentious interpretation of the facts.
The prosecutor wants us to believe that Cam wanted Sarah to have an abortion when the reality is they went to a counselor and discussed life paths and commitments out of which the counselor suggested a number of alternatives, including abortion.
The only "reality" I am willing to accept here is the testimony at trial, which is what it is. Surely, both Sarah and the counselor testified as to what happened, and the counselor kept competent notes. I am trusting that whatever "really happened" came out at trial, as Geragos is capable enough to ensure that Cam's perspective got heard. The State's whore saw it the State's way, the defense whore (Geragos) saw it Cam's way, and the jury saw it their way. The problem here is?
The session was left with Sarah agreeing to have a paternity test which she never did. The reason why Cam asked for that test and felt it necessary to have this session was because Sarah had been previously discovered with another man and Cam doubted he had fathered Lauren. Sarah's refusal to have the paternity test and subsequent meetings with the counselor caused Cam to believe she had been lying to him. He was NEVER upset or reluctant to be a father. He simply doubted that he was.
Again, the facts lie in the trial transcript, as opposed to your tendentious spin (or Hum's).
The prosecutor wants us to believe that Cam did not want to see Lauren even though Cam had to bring legal action in order to assert his rights to meet his daughter. He visited with her faithfully at every opportunity to do so.
Again, the facts lie in the trial transcript, as opposed to your tendentious spin (or Hum's).
CI: This is only the tip of the proven misrepresentations brought out in the trial.
Sez you. Shannon Farren and Denise Nix saw things quite differently and unlike you, they do not appear to be burdened by an obvious conflict of interest:
[blockquote]Resolution of this appeal thus requires us to interpret and evaluate the conduct and statements of two of our current colleagues. Should the petitioners prevail in this appeal, their litigation could proceed to trial and our two colleagues could be called as material witnesses. Under these unusual circumstances, although this is a close case, we believe that in the interests of justice it is better for us to resolve all doubts in favor of recusal. Lorenz v. New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts, 858 A.2d 546 (N.H. 2004). [/blockquote]
You can swear up and down that you are being "independent," but your solicitousness of Ted and indulgence of his abusive tactics screams otherwise.
I'll ask again: When can I see the transcripts? The full autopsy report? The "H-bomb?" Unless and until I have facts to work with, I am epistemically entitled to a measure of healthy skepticism. And as you have been represented to me as one of like mind, you can understand my apparent stubbornness here.
My biggest frustration with Team Cam is that I can't get any truth or honesty on a consistent basis. By way of example, on the one hand, some tell me that Ted regards me highly, but on the other, all I ever hear from him is a relentless stream of gratuitous and vindictive verbal abuse. With all respect, integrity doesn't seem to be at a very high premium over here.
CI: If Ted didn't see some redeeming value in you as a decent person, Ted would not put up with you being here. End of story. He has little patience for people who he views as dishonest or basically indecent.
That's the best laugh I've had all week ... and I have had some good ones. 8)
Ted has said a lot of hurtful and malicious things to a lot of people -- and I'm taking myself out of the equation here. Owing to his XXXX-size personal hubris, Ted finds it virtually impossible to say simple things like "I'm sorry" and "I was wrong." I have found his conduct over the years to be absolutely loathsome -- he makes Archie Bunker look suave and debonair. Would you even want to be seen on the street with a person who talks like this about women ... and even talks like this TO women?
[blockquoteWhat "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
[I'm admittedly partial to blondes, but this woman is definitely in my list of the world's ten most beautiful women: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/29/60minutes/main663862.shtml]
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
"BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion, b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You know sh*t."
--Theodore A. Kaldis [Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** *st*r*sks. :) ][/blockquote]
When he denounced all women as either scags or 'hos, I couldn't resist asking whether his mother was a scag or a 'ho. With hatred toward women like that, it isn't surprising that a lot of people suspect that he is gay.
Ted has some serious issues, and most of them center around his inability to 'fess up when he is wrong. If I could be right just 70% of the time, I would be living on a 150-foot yacht cruising the Great Barrier Reef (I would still have my showgirl wife -- best decision I ever made8)). It is not a crime to say that you are wrong, or that you made a mistake, but Ted would sooner gnaw his right arm off than apologize to Moe over in alt.fan.bob-larson.
As Wayne has observed, many of Ted's other issues revolve around his compulsive need to feel important. He wanted to appear "cool," so he embellished his exposure to the acid-rock scene in the early '70s -- bragging about the "electric beer" being passed around at a Tull concert. Well, I am just too damn chicken to drop acid (and openly admit it), because LSD is forever. When this was pointed out to Ted, he backpedaled faster than Deion Sanders on a long bomb. Whenever he gets caught out like that, he diminishes his reputation even more.
"I met Ian Anderson." Big, fat hairy. Good grief!!! He puts his pants on just like we do. I just don't see the point, CI. Who you are is a lot more important than who you know, and until Ted finally gets over his corpulent ego and gets real (Aishwarya Rai considers being called "real" the greatest compliment she has ever received), he is never going to be more than the loathsome creature he is today.
From the K00K blog:
There are significant liability issues, and if Cam Brown indicated that he might pursue them for neglecting to warn of inherent dangers it could well have spurred this prosecution. I would hate to think that is true, but it's a thought.
The problem with that theory is that Cam had made it known he wasn't going to sue. Ted told us that he encouraged Cameron to file suit, but that Cam saw no gain in doing so.
Additionally, the Statute of Limitations had expired, so even if Cameron wanted to sue, he no longer could.
Kent Wills | 03.18.07 - 5:10 pm | #
So what you are saying is this case potentially posed a significant exposure to litigation against the City. The Pediatric Consultant on whose testimony everything hinged is a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. The judge is a resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. Most of the witnesses are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The case should have rightfully been heard Downtown, except for some finagling by Craig Hum and Judge Arnold.
And no one has said anything about A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?!
Unless the individuals named shared some form of liability, it wouldn't matter where the lived.
Kent Wills | 03.18.07 - 5:18 pm | #
They've totally left the reservation over there, Kent.
Ted: The county assesses the base, but the municipality gets to tack on their charges to it as well.
And their charges are, Ted? I can now say with record support that they had absolutely no reason to give a rat's ass -- so all your crackpot conspiracy theories go straight down the commode where they belong. Once again, Ted Kaldis lies about something that is relatively easy to check -- what a, er, surprise.
Again, I got tired of listening to Ted lie and whine, and decided to check the facts out for myself. The 'Net is such a wonderful thing....
Since I rather doubt that Ted comes over here, let me clue you all in. The city of RPV is part of a huge self-insurance consortium, which is the same as saying they are fully insured. They get to spread risks over 100+ municipalities; it's sort of like Lloyd's of London.
They honestly couldn't give a rat's ass about Cam's tort claim.
errr...
WHAT tort claim?
Ted, whining about Garbagos' loss to Craig Hum:
Ken Smith wrote [re: Craig Hum]: You are the ones whining that he took the great Mark Geragos to school.
Ted whined: Where did you get that? Geragos was effective in his strategy -- discrediting that mercenary Hayes. What Hum was effective at was an overwhelming emotional appeal that had absolutely no basis in fact. In other words, he was able to prevail only on the basis of deception.
IOW, Hum kicked Garbagos' sorry arse from here to DisneyWorld. I'm sure his closing had some basis in putative fact; remember that a closing argument is merely a comment on the evidence, and both sides are entitled to their 'take.' THE JURY decides what the facts are, as opposed to a fat hypocrite whose take is poisoned by his dream of driving a Maybach. As for Dr. Hayes being a mercenary, need I point out that you paid YOUR defense whore more than they paid theirs?
Sounds to me that Hum just flat-out out-lawyered Garbagos, and you're chafed that he did. And unless and until you release the trial transcripts, I can only rely on your lack of veracity.
It's amazing what you learn, and what Ted has not been telling the truth about....
He already tried that.
6. Claim Against the City by Cameron Brown. (Purcell)
Recommendation: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of Council’s action.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK
DATE: JUNE 5, 2001
SUBJECT: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY CAMERON BROWN
RECOMMENDATION: Reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to notify the claimant of the City Council’s action.
BACKGROUND
Cameron Brown is the father of Lauren Key who slipped and fell to her death at Inspiration Point on November 8, 2000. Mr. Brown’s attorney has filed a claim against the City for the wrongful death of his daughter.
Carl Warren & Co. has advised the City that this claim should be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
Jo Purcell
Reviewed:
Les Evans
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2001_Agendas/MeetingDate-2001-06-05/#6a
From our friends at the K00K blog:
To me:
You are not welcome here,
I do ask the hard questions. The ones that, if answered honestly, would mean Team Cameron would have to admit there has been NO fouls committed against Cameron. That he is being held legally. That while the wait for trial is bordering on abuse, it's 100% Cameron's fault. And that no one is going to accept the anonymous claims of Ted and Patty.
but I will answer this. Cam did file a claim against the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Around this same time the ME's report was changed to homicide.
If your claim is true, it means Ted lied, again.
I don't speak for Ted, but If Ted said otherwise it was because he was not aware of that action.
One would presume Ted would know about a conversation he had with Cameron. While I wouldn't expect Ted to be able to quote the conversation verbatim, he should be able to get the context correct.
Ted claimed he encouraged Cameron to sue, but that Cam refused to do so.
It was very early on and a lot of ground has been covered since that time. Obviously. If Ted suggested at a later time that Cam should contemplate a suit, it was after Cam was being hotly pursued and intimidated.
Odd. The way Ted reported it, the arrest came as a complete shock to everyone. Patty confirmed this on a post at the pound.
What pursuit and intimidation was there? It must have been VERY minor, since no one saw the arrest coming.
The statute may have stopped running when Cam made his intentions to sue known by filing the claim.
The Statute of Limitations doesn't "stop running." It expires. It's possible, in some instances, to get it extended (Nazi war criminals leap instantly to mind), but I don't see this being a case warranting an extension. It's not like the county and/or city had run off to a foreign country and took assumed names.
You seem unaware of local small-town politics.
Small-town or not, the law is the law. And if the SoL had expired, then it wouldn't have mattered one bit. Cameron could file, but it wouldn't go anywhere. The case would be dismissed because the SoL had expired.
Countrygirl wrote:
He already tried that.
We know. I just wanted to get CI and/or Ted to comment on it, and in doing so, prove that Ted lied.
DATE: JUNE 5, 2001
Interesting. While I can't recall the exact date that Ted posted the claim to Usenet, I do know he claimed Cameron had no interest in suing well after 2001. I do know it was after July of 2004 (when I subscribed to misc.legal). Gee, three years AFTER Cameron filed Ted claims Cameron had no interest.
Either Cameron did a stealth file, or Ted, in a foolish attempt to show everyone how little Cam cared about money, lied. Both are possible, but Ted's lying is far more probable.
Ken wrote:
They've totally left the reservation over there, Kent.
This implies they were once on it.
Ted's mental problems are well known. It's clear Patty doesn't have the firmest grasp on reality either.
Some of Patty's problems can be traced to the stress of having her husband sitting in jail. Some of it is her NEEDING Cameron to be innocent so much that she is willing to accept Ted's conspiracy theories, even when they are proved to be wrong.
From the K00K blog:
Ken:
Sarah would have been the beneficiary of Lauren's estate, as evidenced by the fact that they paid the lady. Where would Cam stand to benefit and how? Cam might stand to benefit marginally in a loss of consortium action, but beyond that, he just didn't have an obvious horse in the litigation race.
Although he did all he could to deny it, Lauren was Cam's daughter as well. As such, he should have had more than a marginal benefit.
I would love to know what became of the suit that Cam filed (the one Ted claimed he didn't). What was the final ruling?
I'm guessing, and that's all it is, that Cam lost.
He would have been offered a settlement, if the insurance company thought there was the slightest merit, but I expect Cam's greed (as proved by his lifestyle) wouldn't allow him to accept it. It wouldn't be enough.
Over at the K00K blog, Ted wrote [explaining why Arnold's living in RPV would be a conflict of interest]:
Because if Cam wins a BIG settlement from RPV, Arnold's property taxes go up. DUH!
Did Ted move from California? It's the COUNTY, not the city, that assigns property taxes. If RPV were found to be negligent, it wouldn't have any impact on the property taxes.
Dang, Ted. Being ignorant is one thing. Proudly displaying it for all to see is quite another.
CI wrote [at the KKK]:
How can anyone look at the picture on this page of Cam and Lauren and not see how much that beautiful little girl meant to him.
I've seen pictures of John Wayne Gacey (I may have that spelled wrong) smiling with a few of his victims. While no one is saying Cameron is a serial killer, that he was able to smile when he knew a camera was pointed at him proves nothing.
She was created in his image and
WHOA!!!!
Team Cam is assigning Cameron God status!
So much for the Christian angle they were trying.
the pride and joy of his life. He looked forward with pleasure to each and every opportunity he had to spend with her, and he never failed to do so.
So long as he didn't have to actually do anything with her.
I still think about how he showed up on his motorcycle to pick Lauren up. Let's not dwell on the fact that a three or four-year-old should NEVER be on a running motorcycle (maybe a side car, but even that is dangerous), he couldn't even be bothered to bring a helmet.
When the woman at the school confronted him about it, he got belligerent, saying something to the effect of, "Don't tell me how to raise my child!"
That child was loved and she knew it.
Sarah certainly loved her. Cam's mom loved her (even though Cameron did what he could to keep them apart). I presume Bob Brown loved her, though I've seen nothing either way.
Cameron had NO regard for her. She was a serious burden.
1) Cam wanted Sarah to get an abortion (such a Christian view). Ted has confirmed this. Of course, Ted isn't known for his honesty, so the conversation between Cam and Sarah may be 100% fiction.
2) He had NO contact with Lauren until court-ordered to pay child support. Then he wanted to spend as much time as possible with her (it didn't escape anyone that more time = less child support = more money for Cameron's expensive hobbies).
3) He denied the child even being his (despite her looking just like him) until a DNA test proved it.
Yeah, he was all about Lauren. Just like I'm all about eating steak. The regulars here know I'm a vegetarian (I point it out on the off chance someone new is reading).
Ken:
Ted, what say yew on this point? Do we really need to warn people not to point champagne bottles at people's eyes?
Ted:
If McDonald's needs to warn customers that their coffee is hot, then, YES, we really DO need to warn people about this.
So here we have Ted telling everyone the Cameron is a twit. Not smart enough to see how dangerous IP is. Even though those of us who have seen nothing more than pictures can recognize the dangers, Cameron, being right there, was too stupid to figure it out.
Why the heck would Ted, Patty, etc., allow someone as mind numbingly dumb as Ted implies Cameron was to spend time alone with Lauren?
CI: Cam Brown deserves better than he got. All men deserve a fair and unhampered defense.
Hell, I didn't even get my day in court ... and an extremely LARGE part of Team Cam approved gleefully (he had to "F*** the 'dictionary' definition" [simply put, I am not so dishonest or hypocritical as to hide my curses behind *st*r*sks -- unlike some people] to get to the answer he wanted -- this is where we get "Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary" from). Why should Cam "deserve" better, Ted?
I would like you to finally answer this question, Ted. Candidly. Without prevarication or evasion. Once and for all. Why does Cam "deserve" what you would cheerfully deny to me?
In a biblical sense, it matters to this discussion. You see, if "justice" is only for Christians, then it is not justice at all. While the New Testament is largely silent about the matter, the OT is replete with strong exhortations to the children of Israel to ensure that even those who were foreign to the Covenant received their just due as members of the human family. E.g., Exod. 23:9; Deut. 24:17. Judges and officers of the law are not to be “respecters of persons,” Deut. 16:18-20; 2 Chron. 19:7, lest they turn judgment to wormwood (Amos 5:7). And of course, there is the big daddy of them all: Matt. 7:12. Let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no; let your word stand for something. "Anyone who knows the good he should do and does it not, sins." Jas. 4:17.
I'd like an honest and thoughtful answer, and I'd like Ted's colleagues to set upon him to finally give one up.
I had assumed that Cam filed closer to the statute of limitations. This new development changes everything -- and in a most emphatic way.
So, what was the final disposition of the Brown lawsuit? It was filed prior to June 5, as they had to be served and the situation had to be reviewed by the city's attorneys. (Ted actually tried to tell us that the statute of limitations was open because Cam didn't know facts necessary to pursue it, but as is true far too often, Ted lied.) Cam was arrested in November of 2003, which meant that this suit pretty much had to have gone to trial well before that and more importantly, had it been withdrawn without prejudice, the statute of limitations would have run even under current CA law (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgical, Inc., 110 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2005) (reversing the lower appellate court, which had dutifully followed the Bristol-Myers "bright-line" test)), because Cam already knew about the conditions, and can't invoke the benefit of delay on the grounds of ignorance.
The latest argument advanced by Team Cam is that the city went after Cam [wielding influence on the LASD] as a response to concerns regarding litigation. But the timing is terribly wrong here. If the civil suit had been filed in May of 2001, it would have gone to trial long before November of 2003. Conversely, if the lawsuit had been withdrawn (without prejudice), the statute of limitations would have run, and Cam would have posed no financial threat to the City.
EVERY Team Cam conspiracy theory falls apart here. Cam could do nothing to harm the City, or the Conservancy. What's more, according to CI, people fall off those cliffs at a clip of 1.7 per year, and had been for at least a decade. Not only had Cam "gone away," but he was gone by definition. NO ONE had any reason to go after him. Period.
At the end of the day, Team Cam is asserting that there is a grand conspiracy, without an object or even a reason for existence. Ted's lies on USENET about this lawsuit are legion, but secondary to this most basic of questions: What exactly happened here?
Funny thing, I could find NO posts by TK about Lauren's death AT ALL until he brought up the case in January 2004 on USENET, over 3 years after she died.
Coincidentally, that same day, he floated an inquiry about insurance fraud, obviously to see if Sarah could be charged with fraud because of her wrongful death settlement with Cam/Patty's homeowner's insurance policy.
Jan 07 2004
Say someone files a suit for wrongful death of a loved one (both parties
reside in California, where the suit is filed), and the defendant's insurance
company conducts an exhaustive investigation which determines that the death
was the result of an accident. Plaintiff agrees to a settlement offerred by
the insurance company and receives the money. I am told that the plaintiff
can henceforth not pursue any criminal action against the defendant in
connection with the death, because that by receiving the settlement, they are
agreeing with the insurance company's finding that the death was accidental.
To take the money and then pursue criminal legal action against the insured
would represent insurance fraud, since the insurance company pays out only in
the case of accidental death, and not if the death was a result of criminal
intent. If the plaintiff believes the death was a result of criminal intent,
then his remedy is against the one who committed the crime, and the insurance
company should not be a part of this action since they only pay out in the
event of an accident. Is this true, and if so is it part of statutory law in
California?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Of course, it was pointed out that only LE can file criminal charges and LE is not bound by civil lawsuits, etc.
The fact that CB filed a claim with RPV for wrongful death when he had spent barely a few weeks total with Lauren makes me sick.
Six months after her death he filed a claim; it took him almost 3 years after her birth to start paying child support, and over 3 years before he finally met her.
Wow. Good find, CG.
Ted is such an idiot. He should know that Sarah would have nothing to do with charging Cam with murder. That's up to the police and the DA to ultimately press charges and go to trial.
Duh.
Sarah can't determine the cause of death. She wasn't in a position to determine that. She could believe it, but it had nothing to do with the insurance settlement.
If she defrauded an insurance company, beLIV you me, they'd have gotten their money back.
Loretta wrote:
Sarah can't determine the cause of death. She wasn't in a position to determine that. She could believe it, but it had nothing to do with the insurance settlement.
Presuming Ted was telling the truth (a DANGEROUS presumption to be sure), all Sarah did was agree that the insurance company concluded Lauren's death was an accident. This doesn't mean she agreed that it was an accident.
Yeah, defrauding an insurance company might be something like this...
Say someone files a wrongful death claim against a city in California claiming negligence, but the plaintiff in the claim is actually the one who caused the death of the victim. Is that insurance fraud?
He's so much fun. Let's see if we can get an answer:
Ted:
If you grieved so terribly over Lauren, why was this the first entry anywhere on the 'Net (where you posted not hundreds but thousands of times) that had anything to do about her death? Why was your primary concern one about insurance fraud, obviously to see if Sarah could be charged with fraud because of her wrongful death settlement against Cam/Patty's homeowner's insurance policy?
Jan 07 2004
Say someone files a suit for wrongful death of a loved one (both parties reside in California, where the suit is filed), and the defendant's insurance company conducts an exhaustive investigation which determines that the death was the result of an accident. Plaintiff agrees to a settlement offerred by the insurance company and receives the money. I am told that the plaintiff can henceforth not pursue any criminal action against the defendant in connection with the death, because that by receiving the settlement, they are agreeing with the insurance company's finding that the death was accidental.
To take the money and then pursue criminal legal action against the insured would represent insurance fraud, since the insurance company pays out only in the case of accidental death, and not if the death was a result of criminal intent. If the plaintiff believes the death was a result of criminal intent, then his remedy is against the one who committed the crime, and the insurance
company should not be a part of this action since they only pay out in the event of an accident. Is this true, and if so is it part of statutory law in California?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
You're a 'Net-savvy guy -- why didn't you post a tribute to Lauren in 2000? It's not like your current website is so complicated that you couldn't have done it way back then -- the Bob Larson Fan Club site was more substantive six years ago. Isn't it true that you really didn't give a rodent's biblical transport even after Cam was caged? Isn't it true that you didn't get around to it until Loretta pointed out that you didn't have one?
Most folks put up their tributes the next day. Candlelight vigils and all. But yet, it took you more than three years? All you have ever cared about is Cam, Cam, Cam, Cam, Cam. Isn't that true, Ted?
And your incurable ignorance of the law shines in that post, as well. Surely, you should know that Sarah had no control over whether the District Attorney would prosecute....
WMD:"Rodent's biblical transport..." That needed two paper towels to mop up the nasal-ejected coffee from my keyboard.
Delighted I could oblige, Wayne. After all, as I see it, I probably owe you a few. :)
From the udder blog:
CI: For you to even make the suggestion that someone named Loretta has, by pure osmosis, more compassion, more knowledge, more grief or more memories regarding that beautiful little child is the pinacle of stupidity!
Admit it: Loretta just flat-out embarrassed you guys. "Tuesday, August 29, 2006: In Memory of Lauren - on her Birthday." In response: "A Beautiful Child Tuesday, September 05, 2006: In Loving Memory of Lauren Sarene Key." You guys basically forgot her tenth birthday!
And this gem:
[Ted:] No, Ken, this is NOT "siily" at all. The night of the accident, Sarah was directed by Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputies to go to the Carson station. Sarah testified, under direct questioning, that she "knew something was wrong" when Deputy Martinez came in the room, and before the deputy even said a word she dropped a bag with the word "Homicide" written on it in big black letters in front of Sarah. Ken, even you would have to admit that such a thing is very unusual and highly suspicious. (If only you were honest, that is.)
[Ken:] And you worked the homicide beat where? I'd imagine that the homicide department has bags with the word "Homicide" written on them; I'd only be mildly surprised if they all said "Cheetos." Getting evidence bags lost or mixed up is a common problem with most large police departments, and it is entirely plausible to me that a department as large as LA would have them printed up by department. [I also pointed out that some of the bags are probably the final repository for hundreds of Beanie Babies....]
They're in permanent damage-control mode over there....
Ken:
Surely, you should know that Sarah had no control over whether the District Attorney would prosecute ...
Ted:
Ken, get a clue! Sarah has been manipulated by the prosecutor.
Um... That doesn't answer the question, Ted.
No. What Ted has been appalled by is how the authorities are using the judicial system to protect the interests of the agenciy they work for, and in order to do that they falsified a murder case against an innocent man and grieving father.
I would be appalled by this as well. Thank God there is NO evidence that this has happened in the last five years. At least in LA County.
anonymous (I suspect Patty, but can't say why):
And by the cops long before the prosecutor, starting with deputy Martinez who notified Sarah of Lauren's death that night. As she prepared to do so, deputy Martinez put a bag with some of Lauren things on the table in front of Sarah. The words Homicide Bag were printed on the bag. In this way before she even said a word deputy Martinez implanted the idea in Sarah's mind that Cam had intentionally killed their daughter.
As so often happens, the truth is not as you present it. As everyone knows, I have friends in the LA County government (how do you think I got the full autopsy report that shows injuries consistent with a throw/toss?). I asked for and got a picture of the evidence bags used at the time of Lauren's death.
See the image below (I was sent a picture of an evidence envelope as well). Each evidence bag is used to collect evidence to be used at trial. Once all is said and done, the bag is destroyed.
http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/images/evidence02.jpg
They've been in use for many years and are currently used by the LACSD.
Ken:
Does the LASD homicide unit have "Suicide Bags?" "Accidental Death Bags?" "Overdosed on PCP Bags?" Now, you're being silly....
More so when you see what the bags really look like. They come pre-printed as seen in the photograph.
It's important to note that Ted, et al., has always maintained the word Homicide was PRINTED on the bag. Not written, as if a deputy wrote it. Printed, as if it was placed on the bag by a professional printing company (I expect Ted will claim he meant hand printed, since another Ted Kaldis lie has been exposed).
This is not done, of course. Bags are kept in the evidence room. Each deputy and detective will have a bag or two in their work vehicle, just in case one is needed. Since there is no way to know what will be placed inside, or what crime may be being investigated, there is nothing printed as claimed by Ted and the rest of Team Cameron.
Ted:
No, Ken, this is NOT "siily" at all. The night of the accident, Sarah was directed by Los Angeles Sheriff's Deputies to go to the Carson station. Sarah testified, under direct questioning, that she "knew something was wrong" when Deputy Martinez came in the room, and before the deputy even said a word she dropped a bag with the word "Homicide" written on it in big black letters in front of Sarah. Ken, even you would have to admit that such a thing is very unusual and highly suspicious. (If only you were honest, that is.)
Make a PDF of the pages where Sarah testified to such available to us. Since the transcript is part of the public record, there is no reason not to, unless, of course, what you claim Sarah said wasn't said.
Ted or Patty posting as CI:
Speaking of lack of candor and outright intentional deception, we are about to expose yet another of the many LIES promoted by the prosecutor. Stay tuned.
I always thought Hum's claiming that Ted really is a stand-up kind of guy was a bad idea. :)
Ted or Patty posting as CI:
In your dreams! It just goes to prove how ignorant you are. For you to even make the suggestion that someone named Loretta has, by pure osmosis, more compassion,
She does. Most everyone does.
more knowledge,
She probably does not. She didn't meet Lauren, so she should have less knowledge.
more grief
Loretta has openly displayed more grief (as you use the term) than Ted, Patty, or Cameron.
or more memories
Loretta would have NO memories. And no one has ever claimed she has any, let alone more.
I like how you folks love to argue points not in contention. You're so desperate for a win, you'll argue something about which everyone agrees.
regarding that beautiful little child is the pinacle of stupidity!
Lauren. Her name is Lauren.
I understand that you and the rest of Team Cameron don't want to acknowledge she was a real live living human being, but she was. And she has a name. Try writing it once in a while.
I have learned to expect this from you, however, and for that reason I will chalk it up to yet another pathetic showing of your departure from reality.
Have you confused Ken with Ted again? You owe Ken a GIANT apology.
CI:
And you would be wrong again. Evidence bags are not delivered to a grieving parent!
So Sarah took possession of the bag and its contents?
Evidence bags are supposed to be kept in evidence rooms. It is not normal or common procedure to do what Martinez did.
If Dept. Martinez collected the evidence in the bag, it would be perfectly normal and common for Martinez hold on to the bag until it is checked into the evidence room. Chain of possession is VERY important.
Sarah was being notified about her daugher's death,
Her name is LAUREN. She was a human being with a name. Try using it once in a while.
Yes, this will mean admitting Lauren was a human being of value. And it's obvious you place NO value on her short life. Even so, give the illusion that you care. OK?
for crying out loud! She should have been notified hours earlier.
Here's one of the few things you write that I can agree with. I can't understand why they waited so long to inform Sarah of Lauren's death.
The lack of sensitivity is, to me, appauling.
Try being more sensitive. Start by using Lauren's name. Acknowledge that she was a human being and not just a thing.
You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight but of unsound mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Kaldis Zone!
Ted wrote [in the same post!]:
I don't drink.
and then:
Oh, I may take a sip or two every now and then, but I'm no lush. Certainly never enough to get three sheets to the wind.
From dictionary.com:
I –pronoun 1. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
don't --noun: contraction of do not.
do –verb (used with object) 1. to perform (an act, duty, role, etc.): Do nothing until you hear the bell.
not --adverb (used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here.
drink --noun 2. to imbibe alcoholic drinks.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
--William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton
From the last post beforehand:
You see, Ken, if you had the truth on your side you would not have to use deliberate exaggerations.
If you had the truth on your side, you would not have to invent a whole new language with which to express yourself.
Translated from the TKTFD, "I don't drink" evidently means, "I haven't quite checked myself into Betty Ford yet." Employing the same canon of construction consistently, I must presume that when you say, "I don't take LSD," you really mean, "I haven't dropped acid on a regular basis."
Then, you observe:
Yes, you seem to have a real problem keeping things straight.
Given that when you say "I don't drink," you really mean, "I don't drink very often, or to great excess," then it logically follows that when you say, "I don't do LSD" you really mean, "I don't do LSD all that often, or to great excess." Do I finally have that one straight?
[appropriate theme music in background] You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight but of unsound mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Kaldis Zone!
CI: As far as those things which have been brought out in the trial, I will continue to post the facts.
Fine. When can we expect to read the trial transcripts? After all, 100% of it has been brought out at trial and by your stated standards, should be fair game. Uh, it's not like Craig Hum has a copy, now is it? It would make perfect sense to release it in its entirety, if it really proves what you claim. “It is certainly true that any active conduct or words, which tend to produce an erroneous impression, may amount to fraud, and half the truth may be a lie, in effect.” Twing v. Schott, 338 P.2d 839, 843 (Wyo. 1959).
With all respect, CI, you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing Team Hum of....
From the KooK Blog:
Ted: Ken, I'm going to POOF this post, because it is way off topic, and adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion (and in fact serves to distract us from the matter at hand). But before I do, I'm going to cover just this one point.
Translated from the TKTFD, "adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion" really means "it is so damn embarrassing that I want it to disappear." Whatever happened to the biblical admonition to let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no? When anyone else says "I don't drink," it means, "I don't drink (alcohol)." At all. But when you say something, I never know WTF it means -- because it always turns out to mean something different than it would when you resort to the dictionary for a definition. It's about your credibility or more precisely, why you don't have any.
Ted, I am tired of your "Distortion, Manipulation (of the language) and [outright] Lies!" And since this is the topic, it is indisputably on-topic. To say that my comments are off-topic is to follow Alice through the Looking-Glass ... into The Kaldis Zone: [reposted the relevant post via blockquote]
Well, where I come from, "I don't drink" means I don't drink. At all.
And, for the record - I don't drink. At all. Not even a few sips. I don't even smell it for fun. I don't even think about it.
I can honestly say that and it means exactly that: do NOT. Not = never.
It cracks me up when Ted says that things "distract" from their argument as if they have some kind of sense of urgency. They have all the time in the world to discuss whatever they want. What's the problem? It's not as if Cam is in any hurry to get out of jail. Hello?
More fun from the K00K Blog:
Ted: Ken Smith wrote:
You might find this excerpt from a piece I am currently working on to be both edifying and on-topic:
Only tangentially so, but we'll tolerate it.
As this is written, much is being made of a
contrived
scandal
There is no "scandal". Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, and he has every right to replace them at his will. Indeed, Bill Clinton fired all federal prosecutors when he took office. Even Democrats concede that there was no law broken when these prosecutors were fired.
involving Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of deputy AGs for "performance-related issues" when apparently, they resisted White House attempts to pressure them into to initiating politically-motivated criminal prosecutions.
Who cares why he fired them? He has every right to do so, for whatever reason.
On the other hand, Gonzalez needs to go -- not for this, but for the Ramos-Compean travesty of justice -- and his buddy Johnny Sutton along with him.
Theodore A. Kaldis | Homepage | 03.22.07 - 9:46 am | #
[My response:] Ted, I am stunned that you don't see a connection. Prosecutors have way too much latitude -- they can overcharge without penalty (which is, if what you are saying is correct, what they did to Cam). What's more, if you have no problem with the President being able to lean on the AGs, you have no cause for complaint if the RPV city fathers (or anyone else in your ever-changing conspiracies) were able to lean on Craig Hum. I thought you would be stupid enough to defend the firing of federal prosecutors, which necessarily results in the destruction of your complaint against Craig Hum! The only argument you have left is to resort to special pleading.
Description of Special Pleading [from the Nizkor Project]
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.
The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:
1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.
This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.
From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle is a reasonable one. After all, it would not be particularly rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. As an extreme case, it would be very odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5.
I predict a quick POOF for this one. :)
....for crying out loud! She should have been notified hours earlier.
Here's one of the few things you write that I can agree with. I can't understand why they waited so long to inform Sarah of Lauren's death.
The lack of sensitivity is, to me, appauling.
~~~~~
Yes it is. So why didn't CAMERON notify Sarah of Lauren's death.
Per GerEgos, it was because 'after all, he was married to Patty.'
Pathetic!
This one won't last long on the KOOOOOK Blog. Ted can't resist burying himself....
[for context] Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken, honest question here: do you believe that the Colorado Bar Examiners were being honest when they said they had concerns about your psychological fitness to practise law?
Not that that is an honest question,
It's an honest question.[end context]
Ted: and I can just imagine you going ballistic.
K: I can just imagine you (a) rolling a fag for beer money, (b) doing LSD at a Tull concert, (c) being three sheets to the wind as you post on the Internet, (d) surreptitiously visiting gay bookstores in Darlinghurst to perform at the glory holes, and (e) stalking Kym Horsell, as they are all well within the parameters of your known character, as established on the Internet.
I can also just imagine Cam (a) demanding that Sarah get an abortion, (b) ordering Lauren to go out and get the bag she left in the middle of the street, (c) picking Lauren up on his motorcycle without having a helmet, (d) driving her around LA freeways without a child-safety seat, and (e) giving Lauren a quick chest pass into the Pacific Ocean, as they are all well within the parameters of his known character as established in that 9-1-1 call (and the testimony of an array of independent witnesses).
Ted: If so, then that is the instant in which your fate was sealed. But is that how it happened?
K: If so, then that is the instant in which Cam's fate was sealed. But is that how it happened? (And to answer your "honest" [as the word is defined in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary, which is hell and gone from the English] question for about the hundredth time, no. Now, go back to your regularly-scheduled Johnnie Walker Red.)
Ted: It's an honest question.
K: So, did Cam murder Lauren? It looks on the face of it to be an honest question -- and one which the Los Angeles County DA's office has a right to have resolved in court. Sure, the L.A.S.D. looks like the Keystone Kops (just like Fuhrmann and VanAtter), and their sloppy police work may let yet another killer from a rich family go free eventually, but you can't really say they aren't doing what they ought to be doing....
Ted: Stuff happens. Perhaps that person greased the right palms in preparation?
K: You never do read before you spout off. I'm reciting the legal standard, as established by Rule 201.10. As that is the standard, it is obvious that the Examiners acted in bad faith. It is, however, known that a known cocaine dealer and convicted felon was given a license, on account of her "connections" within the "Romer machine."
But as you said, "stuff happens." It's rare, but parents do kill their children. And it looks like that may well have happened on Inspiration Point in November of 2000....
For the record (from the K00K blog):
T: Speaking of ...
K: I can just imagine you (a) rolling a fag for beer money,
T: Never happened. That wasn't me.
You publicly admitted participation in the event sufficient to constitute criminal liability for conspiracy, even if you never struck a blow. And of course, you never lie or deliberately deceive, right, Ted?
K: (b) doing LSD at a Tull concert,
T: Nope. I have never ingested LSD. Not once.
You publicly alluded to partaking whilst describing your escapades at said Tull concert, but quickly backtracked when I pointed out that LSD is forever. And of course, you never lie or deliberately deceive, right, Ted?
K: (c) being three sheets to the wind as you post on the Internet,
T: As the last time I have ever been "three sheets to the wind" was LONG before I ever had internet access, this couldn't possibly be true.
You have told us that you drank (alcohol), and then you didn't drink, and then you drank, and then you didn't drink ... and then, admitted that when you say you "don't drink," you really mean that you do. It would be hard for me to keep your lies and deceptions straight without being three sheets to the wind....
K: (d) surreptitiously visiting gay bookstores in Darlinghurst to perform at the glory holes, and
T: Not bloody likely, as the only part of Darlinghurst [in Sydney] that I've been to is Darling Harbour, where they have a lagoon where they perform aquatic shows, and also an IMAX cinema (with the world's largest screen, as it happens).
Being disingenuous again? Darlinghurst is southeast of Hyde Park on the way to the SCG; it is a land of gay bars and Lebanese restaurants. Not being as attuned to the gay subculture as you quite obviously are, I would have never known had you not mentioned it, and noticed certain evidence whilst walking to the SCG for an ODI. Are you now asserting that the Darling of Darlinghurst has never been there? Surrrrrre, Ted.
K: (e) stalking Kym Horsell,
T: Nope. Just happened to be in the neighbourhood.
Half-way across Melbourne (which is about the size of Chicago)? Why stop in and take a pic of his house, if not to communicate the fact that you were stalking him? Classic stalking behaviour....
Kent wrote:
Half-way across Melbourne (which is about the size of Chicago)? Why stop in and take a pic of his house, if not to communicate the fact that you were stalking him? Classic stalking behaviour....
People who know the area (I'm not one of them, should anyone wonder), Kym's house isn't convenient to anything. This makes Ted's past claim that he was on the way to the airport so unlikely as to be a lie.
Additional (I should at least ACT like I'm proofreading,huh?":
The message Ted was sending was clear, given that he quickly posted the picture of Kym's house to his web site.
"I know where you live and can stop by ANY TIME I WANT."
If, as Ted would have us believe, he was trying to convey the message that he knows where Kym lives, but can't be bothered to stop by, he would have waited until he was back in the U.S. Then the message would have been, "I know (and knew) exactly where you live, but you weren't worth the time to visit."
From the land of K00Ks:
Ken:
The civil rights violations you saw probably aren't there, for reasons previously stated.
CI:
I disagree, of course. One has the right to provide for their defense.
Has Geragos been denied reasonable access to Cameron? If so, Geragos knows what to do. If he's doing nothing, then we can presume Cameron isn't being prevented from providing for his own defense, OR Geragos really is more incompetent than I am willing to accept.
One has the right, while awaiting trial, to be treated in a manner which allows proper access to medical care, nutrition, mail, visitation, etc. When those simple rights are repeatedly denied, we have a violation of some of our most basic civil rights.
I agree. However, there is nothing more than Cam's word that he's not gotten all of that. And as Burnout Bill, a former close friend of Cam's, told us, Cameron has no problem with lying.
Cam is not a prisoner after having been convicted of a crime! He has the right to legal mail and reading materials. He has a right to be free from harrassment, threats, getting his haircut and taking a shower. Remember, we are not talking about a man who has been convicted of a crime, and we are talking about someone who has been placed in jail without bail because of the over-zealous behavior of a prosecutor and the sheriff's investigators.
We're talking about a man who has been placed in jail because there is enough evidence to warrant a trial (as proved by the close count of the first trial). Further, we're talking about a man who, for whatever reason, is unwilling to take the steps needed to reinstate a speedy trial.
He has the right to bail and bail should be established in a reasonable manner on an individual basis unless otherwise stated by law.
Bail isn't an option for those charged with 1st degree murder, according to Ted. I've not looked into the applicable law, so it's possible Ted lied.
While I think Cameron should be permitted a sizable bail (I'm the only one NOT on team Cam to publicly state this, BTW) with electronic monitoring, that doesn't mean a great deal. The law trumps what I or anyone else thinks.
It is left to the discretion of a judge assuming that a judge will use discretion! When bail is denied that most often means there is a flight risk because a person has no ties, family, property, history, etc. The fear that he may escape the jurisdiction of the State has to be real.
Given Bob Brown's money, a trip to Brazil isn't impossible. And with enough money, Cameron could live well and safe.
I've heard, but can not stress enough I've not looked into it, that there is no extradition treaty with Belize. Cameron would have even less trouble there, if there is no treaty. English is spoken in Belize (it used to be called British Honduras).
An American with money would treated VERY well.
Cameron could vanish to any number of foreign countries, never to be seen again.
Would this happen? We don't really know. And we won't know, since he's not eligible for bail.
The other consideration is that he is likely to commit another crime because of the nature of the person involved and his historical pattern. It is an abuse of the judge's discretion when he fails to take these things into honest consideration and only bows to the wishes of the prosecutor.
How is following the law bowing to the wishes of anyone? Please be specific.
As I said, I see civil rights violations from here to the next county, and I am just getting started.
If you had any evidence of it, you might have a reason to gripe. Currently, you've offered NONE.
From K00Ksville:
CI:
Ken, you can't deny the facts presented by the prosecution...Cam was asked to remain calm, talk a deep breath and answer the questions. He was held on the phone, not by his own choice, but by those he was counting on to help him retrieve Lauren.
Hey, you're using her name. Good for you. It's just a shame I had to EMBARRASS you into doing so.
Maybe Cam is a bigger idiot than anyone dared imagine, but the neat thing about mobile phones is that they are MOBILE! He could have continued to Lauren's location. The dispatcher knew where he was, so getting help to the location wouldn't have been difficult.
Emergency services were dispatched before the call was halfway over and Cam still managed to get to Lauren and take her to the picnic area prior to their arrival. I'd like to see you accomplish that! Never mind.
If anyone, other than Cam, who was in GREAT shape when he needed to get to Lauren's body, but just couldn't quite keep up with her earlier, it would be Ken. One doesn't run marathons without being fit.
It's real easy to judge the actions of another person, but if you were being honest about this situation you would know that Cam (or anyone else!) was scared and traumatized, worried that he would not be able to retrieve Lauren himself or give her the medical care she would need.
Than nervous chuckle didn't sound like someone who was scared and traumatized. His apologizing to the nudists doesn't fit with someone being worried.
HE NEEDED HELP! What part of that can you not understand? HE NEEDED HELP! Cell phones do not provide emergency services with information regarding the location they need to go to and if you hang up the phone, the services may not be dispatched to the right location.
You stated that they were already dispatched. Cameron could have continued down to where Lauren was. Of course, the longer he waited, the better the chance that he would find her dead.
If you move, you lose the cell signal.
Never used a cell phone before?
Do you honestly believe for one moment that he wanted to stay on the phone? Do you believe you would have been able to cover the distance Cam traveled as quickly as he managed to do it?
Ken most probably would have. I don't think I would, but I'm not a marathon runner.
THINK! The complaints by Smith and Leslie were that Cam claimed to go as fast as he could but wasn't wounded in any way that would prove that to be true! For crying out loud, do they think an eagle dispatched him at the picnic area with Lauren? This is pure bs. Stick to the FACTS!
Like the FACT that Cameron somehow couldn't keep up with Lauren when they started out, but suddenly was able to move as fast as The Flash later on?
Why didn't he just yell down and ask someone for a phone? Did it ever occur to you that no one could hear him?
How would he know? Not even Cameron is claiming he tried it.
Would you simply stand on the top of a hill and try to get someone to understand what had happened and count on them to call for help when they weren't paying attention to you? CAM DID WHAT CAM BELIEVED HE HAD TO DO! Unless you walk in his shoes, you are not a fair judge.
Yet YOU judge him as being innocent. Hypocrite!
Reality check. If you stand on top of IP the distance across the front does not appear to be very wide. When you look at the options, it appears that the fastest way to the front would be down the closest path and across the front. PLUS, there might be a telephone available. What would you do? Go back to the road, take the long way down, delay emergency services? Get real! He felt he needed help, and it's clear ... absolutely clear ... that the people on the nude beach offered him very little.
Except for allowing him to use a cell phone. Oh, and the one guy who actually went to the area Lauren was to be found.
Yeah, they were a bunch of cold-hearted bastards, huh?
If they had been responsive, someone else would have been with him when he tried to retrieve Lauren. No one was! He alerted the people who could potentially give him aid and, from what I see, NO ONE DID, except the man with the cell phone. It's a damned sad state of affairs when he was part way through the phone call and people were still standing around in the nude! Figure it out, Ken! People swarm to see an accident, yet no one, NO ONE who was there, was able to get to Lauren faster than Cam had. Only the guy who followed him and ran up on top of the Point was there to witness Cam yelling out for Lauren to not die.
And yet this person mysteriously vanished. Odd that.
If he had witnesses this, Geragos could have forced him to appear in court. Of course, this person was a figment of someone's imagination, so he couldn't be subpoenaed.
This really isn't all that hard to comprehend. He needed help and he did what he thought, under the circumstances, was best to get assistance and go to Lauren. Tell me what you would have done with the benefit of our hindsight!
None of us can KNOW what we would do. However, I'm confident I wouldn't be calm when speaking to the 911 operator. I'm certain I would be in hysterics.
You would NOT hear a nervous chuckle from me. And I wouldn't apologize to the nude people. I doubt I would even pay them much attention. My mind would be on my daughter. Since Lauren was a BURDEN to Cameron, she wasn't the highest of priorities to him.
Ken:
(a) demanding that Sarah get an abortion,
Ted:
If indeed this even happened,
You stated on Usenet that it did. Now you question it? Pick a lane.
it was in the context of "quit bugging me", as Cameron had substantive reason to believe that the child was not his -- a suspicion that Sarah adamantly refused to incontrovertibly resolve, though it was easily in her power to do so.
Cameron could have ordered a DNA test at any time. He didn't for one simple reason: He believed the child was most probably his.
Ken:
(b) ordering Lauren to go out and get the bag she left in the middle of the street,
Ted:
This was completely made up out of whole cloth -- this never happened.
But it was witnessed by at least one other. How is it that the "Don't Die" guy MUST be telling truth, but someone who witnessed Cameron's dark side MUST be lying?
Ken:
(c) picking Lauren up on his motorcycle without having a helmet,
Ted:
What nonsense! He showed up with his motorcycle because he had been in Orange County on other business. Patty was supposed to meet him in the car at the preschool to pick up Lauren, and he would follow them home. But, as usual, she showed up late, and they had to wait for her.
So why, exactly, didn't he simply tell the woman at the school this? Why, instead, when she questioned him about it did he say something to the effect of, "Don't tell me how to raise my child!"?
It would have made far more sense to tell her something like, "Oh, I'm not the one taking her home. My wife is bring the car. But as usual, she's running late."
Cameron would not have taken her on a motorcycle any more than you would have. Are you joking? That would have been INSTANT cop bait (helmets are law in California),
As Burnout Bill has told us, Cameron doesn't (or certainly DIDN'T have the greatest of respect for laws.
and he certainly would have jeopardised his visitation arrangements had he done a fool thing like that. And he knew it.
And yet he did it anyway. This only adds more PROOF that Cameron had NO regard for Lauren's safety and well being.
If I might be allowed to make a suggestion (and even if I'm not): STOP! You are doing far more harm than good.
This is likely to get bounced, so:
Ken: The case law supports what I have been saying.
Ted: Sez you. But when you presented case law to Judge Nottingham, and also to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, they seem to have NOT agreed with you on what case law actually said.
When you read the decision, you also note that they didn't follow the United States Supreme Court and quite obviously so. The Supreme Court gives us the rule of decision:
The remaining allegations in the complaints, how ever, involve a general attack on the constitutiona lity of Rule 461 (b)(3). … The respondents' claims that the rule is unconstitutional [because certain conditions are alleged] do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case. The District Court, therefore, has subject-matter jurisdiction over these elements of the respondents' complaints.
District of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 487 (1980) (internal citation omitted).
While Feldman holds that direct challenges to a decision by a state court cannot be heard in a federal district court, it also holds that facial challenges to a bar admission statute must be heard there. In light of that crystal clear holding, the Tenth Circuit’s admission is astounding:
…[Smith] filed a complaint in fed eral district court setting forth twenty claims for relief for alleged violations of federal law and of plaintiff’s constitu tional rights. Plaintiff sought declarations that the Colorado bar admis sion process and certain admis sions rules were unconsti tu tional…
Smith v. Mullarkey, 67 Fed.Appx. 535, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. Jun. 11, 2003) (emphasis added).
It is the simplest syllogism in the world: If condition X (an applicant challenges the facial constitutionality of a bar admission rule) is true, then Y (a federal district court must hear his claim, by virtue of Feldman). Condition X is true (a fact the Tenth Circuit openly admitted in the highlighted text). Therefore, Y (a federal district court must hear that claim).
Ted, are you HONESTLY just TOO FUCKING DUMB to follow this simple logic? Either you are a microencephalic idiot, pathologically dishonest, or both. And if you are happy with the outcome in my case, you have no reason to bitch if Bubba gets Cam to be his lawfully wedded wife -- because you are sanctioning the rule of law that judges can disregard the law whenever they damn well feel like it.
I'm really getting tired of repeating this, Ted.
From the KOOOOOOOK Blog:
a: The prosecutor tried to pull the Hayes study out of evidence before the trial started, but judge Arnold foiled his attempt.
Looks like Team Cam has been caught in yet another big lie! First, they whine that Judge Arnold is in the prosecutor's pocket and then, they claim that this puppet of a judge "foiled" his nefarious scheme?!?
Keeeee-RIIIIIIST!!!!! Getting these clowns to just pick a story and stick to it is like herding cats.
Wayne Delia said...
From the Bloggus Kookus:
Patty: A quote from the March issue of Los Angeles Lawyer describes Hum prefectly: "Regrettably, some attorney's need to be reminded that they must tell the truth to a court." And if Hum did not tell the truth to the court, how much worst, do you think are his lies to the media, which is all you know of this case.
~~~
Perhaps Patty should review the transcripts of GerEgo's cross of Sarah and the redirect of Hum to see how GerEgos tried to mislead the jury about what was in Sarah's notes.
One example:
GerEgo on cross:
8 Q Okay. You remember going to his house as you sit
9 here; is that correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And you wrote in your notes, playing in the pool.
12 Do you remember going to the house, taking
13 Lauren, and going swimming?
14 A I do.
15 Q Okay. And that would have been it looks like --
16 you made notations in your notes 3:30 to 5:30. So I would
17 assume two hours you were there that you're all swimming in
18 the pool. And it was -- once again, there's nothing in the
19 notes that indicate that there was any problem; correct?
20 A Apart from her being thrown in the pool, yes.
21 Apart from that visit.
22 Q Okay. You didn't put -- I'm might have missed
23 this.
24 Do you remember writing it in the notes
25 anywhere that he threw her in the pool?
26 A I don't remember, no. Sorry.
27 Q Okay. And you didn't make any notes about her
28 being upset or something, did you?
242
1 A If it's not in the notes, then no.
Hum on redirect:
7 Q Now, the defendant's lawyer also asked you about
8 whether or not there was any reference in your notes to the
9 defendant throwing Lauren in the pool and her reaction to
10 that.
11 Do you remember that line of questioning?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Are there in fact references in your notes to
14 that?
15 A Yes, there are.
16 Q And what do your notes say with regard to that?
17 A He threw her in.
18 MR. GERAGOS: Objection. It's a motion to
19 strike. It's reading. She hasn't said that she doesn't
20 remember.
21 May we approach, your Honor?
22 THE COURT: No.
23 I remember the original line of questioning.
24 The objection is overruled.
Now, obviously Geragos had Sarah's notes in front of him at the time, so he would know whether or not she made a note of Cameron throwing Lauren in the pool that day.
He didn't offer to let her see them to 'refresh' her memory as he had done many times with other documents.
From the KooK Blog:
CI: I believe you are right, and so did Cam, from all indications. The problem is, something happened to cause her to fall, slide, roll or otherwise go over the cliff in a manner that was beyond her control. What it really represents is a strong argument for an accident because she would not have willingly gone over to the edge on her own, nor would she have willingly allowed Cam to put her in a precarious situation. Think, Ken.
Think, CI. If Lauren was so instinctively afraid of the edge of the cliff that she never would have ventured near it willingly, and she would have clung to Cam for dear life she had taken there by him, then almost by definition, NEITHER ONE should have happened. The solution is therefore obvious: Cam sucker-punched her in the stomach (or punched her in the face), thereby temporarily incapacitating her. While Lauren is too dazed to put up a struggle, Cam calmly transports her to the edge of the cliff and throws her off like a piece of cheap luggage. As Ted will recall, we resolved this little mystery three years ago.
The competing theory -- that a rambunctious Lauren got up a running start to take a flying leap off the cliff, because by your own admission, she would have been too far away to merely slip -- is so risible as to not be seriously entertained.
Murder One. There's the State's theory of the case, and in light of your own candid admissions, it is a compelling one. Remember, all I have to do is get to the State having a plausible case, and it is incumbent upon you to prove any one of a number of bizarre conspiracy theories that make even the most fanciful 9/11 theories seem perfectly sensible.
Since anything I post to the K00K blog (I've proved they don't know squat about banning by posting WITHOUT a proxy or anonymizer) gets poofed by Ted as soon as he sees it, I'll do all posts here.
Patty, posting as CI, wrote:
Ken, who has called Cam, Ted and Patty names from as long as I can recall, and who has made disparaging and disgusting statements about the their marriage
I recall Ken agreeing with me that we don't have anything to suggest that Cam hasn't commented on his love for Patty in letters not made available to the public.
I also recall when the age difference between Cam and Patty was brought out, Ken was among the first to state the age difference didn't and doesn't matter.
How are these nasty?
and relationship with Lauren even though he doesn't know these people from Adam.
Not everyone had your access to Cam, Patty. You must accept that we're going to use the evidence available to us. That you have chosen to withhold any and all exculpatory evidence is your problem.
Ken who has accused everyone here of being biased and stupid.
ACCURATELY accused everyone of being biased. Maybe stupid is wrong. Ignorant would definately be correct, but I think you *might* be able to learn, making the word stupid incorrect.
That Ken? Give me a friggen break! No one has attacked your character and your statement sounds
Did you miss Ted's replies? I recall you posting a quasi-scathing message to both about what each side was doing.
If Ted has never attacked Ken's character, why did you post the message to both of them? Crickets on stand-by.
like the irrational rantings of a child
So Ted's constantly bringing up the Bar's requirement that Ken take a IME is a pillar of maturity?
Oh yes, wasn't it Ken who couldn't understand why Ted would offer support to his sister without suggesting incest? Oh yes. That Ken. LMFAO!
Actually, that was Loretta. I realize you aren't the smartest of people, but even you should be able to tell them apart.
If you can't figure it out (they do have similar hair color), Loretta is female while Ken is male.
That should make it easier for you in the future.
Ken wrote, at the K00K blog:
Ted: Don't pay any attention to that (as likewise with much of what else Ken Smith says), it's just part of Ken's schtick. Ken's an accountant, and every year at tax time, Ken (who is invariably getting beat up in whatever forum he is posting) announces that he has had enough of the "abuse",
You mean, like the time God told you to withdraw from the 'Net, and that God would punish us if we said anything bad about you?
Don't forget how Ted claimed, through implication, that he would have his god inflict divine retribution upon me. Shortly after that, Ames National Corp. (a MAJOR stock holding of mine) did a three for one split, tripling my dividends.
LOL! And then, there was the time that you disconnected Port 119!
Actually, he claimed he was going to block 119. The end result would have been the same, but you know how Ted jumps on anything he can.
Ted, I've never done that, and you know it. But a lie is your only means of communication, so why should that change?
I'm not convinced that Ted is a pathological liar, but he has proved more times than I care to count that he is a compulsive liar.
Obviously, those acid flashbacks of yours keep you from acknowledging how badly you are beaten up in each and every USENET forum you participated in -- which is why the management here is so adamant about my not posting the evidence.
It wouldn't serve them to have proof of Ted's issues brought up.
Furthermore, it seems that this forum dies without me; all you can do is agree among yourselves. As General Patton once said, "If everyone is in agreement, no one is thinking.
I doubt anyone at the K00K blog ever thinks.
They jump on minor variations in testimony to try and prove some sort of conspiracy and perjury. The variations prove the exact opposite, actually. It shows that the witnesses weren't coached nor rehearsing what they were to say.
Ken wrote, at the K00K blog:
Thanks to John and Ken, I couldn't possibly harm Cam's reputation if I tried. If half of L.A. isn't persuaded that he is a worthless piece of human filth, I would be shocked.
People have short memories. I would be amazed if even 30% of L.A. would know the name. Of those who do recall it, I'd be amazed if 15% could recall why.
Ted wrote:
Except that I have NEVER ingested "acid" (LSD) -- as I have told you countless times...
So should we believe Ted Kaldis or Ted Kaldis?
Ted Kaldis once more than implied that he did while at a Tull concert.
Ted Kaldis claims he did not.
Both can not be true. One MUST be a lie. Which one is something only Ted can KNOW. All we can KNOW is that Ted has lied (but he does that so often, it's a given).
Ted:
Ken, are you hitting the bottle THIS early in the morning? Or is it that you are still up after being on a binge all last night?
But no one has attacked Ken's character, according to CI.
Gee, Ted. You could have waited a *bit* longer to prove her wrong.
CI wrote:
I'm trying to think of the things which influenced the jury pool:
1. Release of the Grand Jury testimony
Because EVERYONE in LA County raced to get a copy, right?
2. Statements by Craig Hum to media and news releases (also outside of Los Angeles)
But, according to Ted, the media paid no attention to the story. How could the media's ignoring it influence anyone?
3. The Breeze headlines and articles
Which, according to Ted, were accurate. Of course, you've pointed out that he probably lied about it.
4. John and Ken Show
Since their segments aired while court was IN SESSION, there's no real chance of influence there.
What have I missed?
Being honest. But since I'm certain you are Patty, and I'm certain Patty's ability to be honest is on par with Ted's [ie there is NO ability], this is to be expected.
Has anyone noticed the picture on the K00K blog showing a group of people standing near the edge of a cliff? If the cliffs are so unstable, why are these people standing there, with smiles on their faces?
http://snipurl.com/1fq61
In case the jpg should "accidentally" get removed, I have it at:
http://snipurl.com/1fq65 (a sniped URL for my Geocities site).
Clearly the edge isn't anywhere near as dangerous as Team Cameron would have us believe.
Archived from the KOOOOOK Blog, as it will disappear within hours (I won't bother with formatting, as it should be obvious as to who is saying what, except that my new comments are designated by a "K"):
Ken: You mean, like the time God told you to withdraw from the 'Net, and that God would punish us if we said anything bad about you?
Ted: I never said that.
K: Sure you did, Winston. We reminded you of it relentlessly for the better part of a year. While you have apparently deleted a lot of old posts in an effort to hide your tracks, we who were there still remember. That's why I archive a lot of your old posts.
Ken: Obviously, those acid flashbacks of yours ...
Ted: Except that I have NEVER ingested "acid" (LSD) -- as I have told you countless times
K: And who are we to believe? We're all thoroughly familiar with your propensity for rewriting history, and your uniquely Christian dissembling and flat-out dishonesty. And we are all confused on this point, as evidenced by this dialogue:
Ken: Game, set, and match.
WMD: Not with this particular admission from Toad. It's more like "game, set, match, tournament."
Loretta: The argument is absolutely devastating. But, it's really wasted on him, Ken.
WMD: I wouldn't be too sure about that at all. It's never a waste on anyone else, such as myself, as I've picked up a lot of new admiration and respect for all the trouble Ken's had with the Colorado Board of Examiners, and the hypocrisy of Toad's argument is about as clear as it can get. But Toad's a rare form of "intelligent moron," who is able to craft, for example, what sounds like an apology which doesn't technically qualify as an apology, all as part of him creating an impression which he's reluctant to admit he actually holds. Typical examples are when he bragged about being so worldly-wise and plugged in to the acid-rock music scene of Jethro Tull, while leaving himself a back door escape hatch to allow him to claim he really didn't drink the "Electric Beer" that was passed around under his nose - it was just an impression he wanted to convey. As well, he may know the law about what constitutes stalking, and he meticulously avoids any admission that might qualify as stalking, all the while attempting to create the (presumably false) impression that he's a rough, tough sonovabitch who can find anyone anywhere at any time, especially when he has to track down Ken in Tahiti.
My conclusion is that Toad is intelligent enough to understand exactly the point that Ken is making, and it chafes his triple-extra-large ass whether or not he admits it. Nobody, bar none, on Usenet grants him any credibility, and his poof-happy fingers on the KKK Blob feed into a compatibly-sized triple-extra-large case of cognitive dissonance. Holding Toad accountable to his own standards constitutes abuse, in Toad's opinion, so he can poof any post he wants, pretending to himself and to others that if a post is poofed, it never was there to begin with, and therefore he doesn't have to worry his poor, pumpkin-sized head over addressing those issues. But he's smart enough to know exactly what is going on, and exactly what bad karma is being dumped on him like a truck full of fertilizer emptied into a convertible Volkswagen Beetle.
K: Some of us would really like some genuine candor from you, as opposed to your relentlessly silly tough-SOB posturing, faux-Christianity, and ersatz Aussie affect. And yes, I will immediately archive the page with this on it.
This one will disappear quickly, as it will force some MAJOR dissembling over at the KOOOOOOK Blog:
K: As this was posted on Easter Sunday, there is a certain irony to it:
Ted: Don't pay any attention to that (as likewise with much of what else Ken Smith says), it's just part of Ken's schtick. Ken's an accountant, and every year at tax time, Ken (who is invariably getting beat up in whatever forum he is posting) announces that he has had enough of the "abuse",
K: You mean, like the time God told you to withdraw from the 'Net, and that God would punish us if we said anything bad about you?
KW: Don't forget how Ted claimed, through implication, that he would have his god inflict divine retribution upon me. Shortly after that, Ames National Corp. (a MAJOR stock holding of mine) did a three for one split, tripling my dividends.
K: LOL! And then, there was the time that you disconnected Port 119!
KW: Actually, he claimed he was going to block 119. The end result would have been the same, but you know how Ted jumps on anything he can.
K: Ted, I've never done that, and you know it. But a lie is your only means of communication, so why should that change?
KW: I'm not convinced that Ted is a pathological liar, but he has proved more times than I care to count that he is a compulsive liar.
Obviously, those acid flashbacks of yours keep you from acknowledging how badly you are beaten up in each and every USENET forum you participated in -- which is why the management here is so adamant about my not posting the evidence.
It wouldn't serve them to have proof of Ted's issues brought up.
K: Furthermore, it seems that this forum dies without me; all you can do is agree among yourselves. As General Patton once said, "If everyone is in agreement, no one is thinking.
KW: I doubt anyone at the K00K blog ever thinks.
They jump on minor variations in testimony to try and prove some sort of conspiracy and perjury. The variations prove the exact opposite, actually. It shows that the witnesses weren't coached nor rehearsing what they were to say.
K: Sounds like the Christian argument for the veracity of the Resurrection story. But as Ted, CI, and the others curiously point out, any story with THAT many flaws in it couldn't possibly be true....
Happy belated bunny-day.
More funnies from the KOOOOOK Blog:
CI: I had a wonderful Easter, thank you. Judging by what you spent your day doing, I'm sorry for you.
K: Evidently, I have two incompetent stalkers on my trail. ROTFLMAO!
The weather sucked here yesterday and as a consequence, I didn't go to the country club (they cancelled the sunrise service at Red Rocks, too), but I did catch most of the final round of The Masters on the tube and had a lovely prime rib for lunch. Still, I did have to do a two-hour cardio session, which might evoke sympathy from the exercise-challenged members of Team Cam.
Speaking of which, I trust that Cam is having a wonderful time at the Hotel California. Canapes on the oceanfront balcony, no doubt? A little bit of surfing, some canasta, and some nookie... well, maybe just the latter.
CI: What matters to us is Cam Brown.
K: That has always been exceptionally clear. Concepts like justice, fundamental fairness, and above all simple logic have always fallen on deaf ears in this blog; all you give a damn about is that your precious Cam be set free -- and it doesn't matter how. Any argument that helps Cam, you will make, without regard for intellectual or moral consistency. Any attempt to apply your own rules to others is disparaged by Team Cam, and anyone who points out the flaws and hypocrisy in your arguments is attacked ad hominem.
From the KooKs:
CI: I'm trying to think of the things which influenced the jury pool:
[...]
3. The Breeze headlines and articles
Kent:
Which, according to Ted, were accurate.
Ted:
Of course what Ken disingenuously neglects to mention (as is his wont) is that [I said] these were accurate recounts of misrepresentations presented by the prosecutor.
First of all, *I* wrote that, not Ken. We don't even have the same hair color, so I have no idea how you confused us.
Second, what you wrote was in a reply to (I think) Wayne's comment that we have the Breeze to read to know what is going on, (paraphrased as I can't be bothered to search Google for it):
"What's being reported is basically what's going on."
You made NO mention of anything being a misrepresentation on the part of either side.
CI:
LOL! And that from a garage burglar (KW). HAHAHAHAHA!
Ted called (and there's no point in pretending it wasn't him) and KNOWS it's not true. If Ted had the ability to be honest, he'd tell you.
Ken, no one here follows you around to where ever you and yours congregate because we are not interested.
Ted most certainly does. I recall his proudly displaying his incompetent stalking of Ken by announcing that Ken was in Tahiti, when, in fact, Ken only placed a false IP in his headers.
Of course, according to Ted, this can't be done, except when he needs it to be able to be done.
Stop bringing it here with some crazed idea that we are supposed to be impressed. I'm not. I'm less impressed by Usenet.
You can't censor the comments of others on Usenet. You'll NEVER post your fanciful claims there.
The number of posts on this comments page doesn't matter to us. Our message is getting where it needs to go,
To each other, only. Did you know the DA's office didn't even know about your blog until I faxed them copies of Ted's claims regarding Geragos' unethical behavior in withholding exculpatory evidence? Oddly enough, they don't have a lot of free time. Seems there are more than enough crimes in LA County to keep them busy (which ruins the idea that Cam is being railroaded by Hum).
and this comments page does not measure that success.
Very few people are paying attention to your blog. It's possible Team Hum has started to check it out. I have no way of knowing. If they are, I seriously doubt they're worried. If, according to Ted, Geragos is willing to withhold H-Bomb class evidence that PROVES Cameron is innocent, Hum has NOTHING to fear.
Your goal has always been to disrupt it by discrediting Ted to the best of your ability.
You can't discredit someone with NO credibility. Besides, no one could even dream of discrediting Ted as well as Ted does.
1) An IP can not be faked.
Oh wait, and IP can be faked.
(It depends on what Ted's agenda is, and that agenda can change in the middle of a post.)
2) Geragos didn't present the H-Bomb because he didn't think it would be needed.
Erm... He didn't present it because someone could lose their job over it.
Um... Maybe the judge refused to allow it?
Interesting how Ted went from being very confident that Marc withheld it because it wasn't believed to be needed to having to GUESS the judge refused to allow it to be presented.
I could go on and on, but I'm sure I made my point.
You prove that over and over again. You have about the same value as a gnat on a tick's rear end. What matters to us is Cam Brown. If the best you can do is continually bring disparaging comments from other forums to this one, it only demonstrates more about who you are, what your goals are and why you should be ignored.
If you followed what you claimed when you first started the blog, "This will be a place for both sides to present arguments..." (paraphrased), and allow those of us who do not buy your lies about Cam's innocence (you're free to prove my statement about you lying to be false by presenting any and all exculpatory evidence for review) to post, then he wouldn't have to bring the posts from other blogs.
Sadly, I kept asking the questions you can't answer honestly without admitting there is NOTHING the least bit illegal, immoral or unethical in regards to Cameron's case.
The intellectual content of your posts speaks volumes.
Now we get the real issue. Ken is writing far above their heads. They try, but lack the intellectual ability to understand.
Jealousy was one of the possible reasons I had for Team Cam's "actions" (not the best word, but it will do) against Ken, but it was little more than a guess until now.
Who the heck is Tethro Tull and who the heck gives a darn? Grow up.
Don't know who Tethro Tull is. I know Ted claimed he ingested LSD laced beer at a Jethro Tull concert. Upon being informed that LSD is forever, he quickly tried to claim he didn't partake of it.
I had a wonderful Easter, thank you.
I did as well. The Princess had fun with a bit of chocolate. At eight and a half months, she still doesn't have the motor control to really eat it. She wore most of it on her face.
Judging by what you spent your day doing, I'm sorry for you.
How would you know what Ken did? Did he post a detailed account of his day? [NOTE: Ken may have. I doubt it, but I haven't read everything yet.]
It must be boring if you believe the world and our efforts revolve around you. Those are some real classy friends you have. You give yourself far too much credit. I'll just keep coming back to change the kitty litter for you from time to time. Right now, you are at the bottom of my list of priorities.
Yet you feel the need to reply to nearly every one of his posts. Please explain how you rationalize the opposing views.
To everyone else. I've suspended new entries for the time being. There are a number waiting in the wings, but they can't be put up quite yet. Thanks for checking in regularly, but it will probably be another week or more (at least) before we put up anything new. Our efforts are going elsewhere for the moment.
Knots Berry Farm opening for the season?
Thumbs up. We appreciate those who have come forward. More than you will ever know.\
Here is where we're supposed to believe there's a massive movement of support waiting quietly in the wings. And if Hum doesn't drop the charges, they'll all come racing out to save the day and embarrass everyone who isn't on Team Cameron.
There are an infinite number of sock puppets Ted and Patty can use, so if someone really, really, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLY stupid comes along,they might buy it.
Me:
Being honest. But since I'm certain you are Patty, and I'm certain Patty's ability to be honest is on par with Ted's [ie there is NO ability], this is to be expected.
Ken:
All reasonably fair comments. I might add that (1) voir dire is supposed to eliminate potential jurors who have prejudged the case, and (2) Geragos can cure this by moving for a change of venue, so pre-trial publicity is not a major issue. Finally, while (3) a credible argument could be made for CI being Patty, I am not persuaded of that.
Ken
I am willing to be proved wrong. Save for a "Thank you" for forwarding her E-mail address to you, and an E-mail commenting on the gross nature of the sig I had at the time (Don't eat yellow snow), I've not read much from Patty. I think one post to the K00K blog was attributed to her (it probably was her) and two or three posts at the kennel are it. Not much to go on, I agree, but I still think it's Patty.
CI:
Sheesh. The only thing you are certain of is how uncertain you are.
Seems to me Ken is quite certain that you are NOT Patty. Where is the uncertainty?
Credible arguments are left for those who don't rely on speculation and confusion.
Are you letting us know your arguments lack credibility?
Since you don't know me and you don't know Patty Brown, I'd say your credibility in this regard is lacking. Toodles.
I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if there is proof that I am. Like all other claims presented by Team Cameron, the proof will never appear.
CI:
OMG, Mr. Smith. Now you are accusing ME of stalking you?
You made the comment about how he spent his day. How could you know if he had a great day or a lousy day if you aren't stalking him?
You bring quotes of how you spent your day on another blog discussing Ted's veracity and then you accuse me of stalking you??????
Did I miss something? When did these posts appear? Where are they?
As I have repeatedly said to you, nobody cares what you and a garage burglar from Arkansas/Iowa have to say about Ted. This forum is for Cam Brown.
So long as the ONLY posts made are about how poor Cameron is being framed, even though there is NO evidence to support such a claim.
I'm tired of you and your petty attacks and ludicrous conclusions. In the scheme of things, you have offered nothing of substance and all kinds of attempts to draw focus away from Cam and onto yourself.
Actually, if you're honest, you'll admit TED did this. He is the one who, when getting his rear handed to him on a platter, brings up the Bar. Every time.
Stop twisting words and boring me with your irrational conclusions. Thanks.
Please cite where Ken has twisted words. Just one cite is all I ask.
And keep in mind, your cite will be checked for accuracy and context.
Thank you in advance.
A cowardly anonymous poster:
Recapping, Ken takes exception to what we have learned here. The investigators have been caught with their pants down. There is absolutely no historical data which gives credibility to the assumption that Inspiration Point is a dangerous place
Uh oh! The crux of the defense is that it IS a dangerous place. So dangerous that warning signs should have been put up to alert those who lack the ability to figure it out will know it's dangerous.
where no man should tread unless they have ideas of committing a murder!
Who, like exactly, made such a claim?
Ken has stated it's the perfect place to stage a murder to look like an accident. Not even in the same area code as what you suggest.
The autopsy report was based on a report by a doctor who based her conclusions on the wrong information received from the investigators.
So Lauren's upper jaw wasn't really broken? Her wrist wasn't shattered? There were no marks of any kind on her body?
The autopsy lists these, and others. Either you're being less than honest, or Putin has far more power than I dared dream :)
From that, we develop a new autopsy report
If a new one was made (not an amendment added to the old one), RUN as fast as your legs will take you to the AG's office with the proof. It's illegal to make a *new* autopsy report in the state of California. Anyone involved will be looking at a **minimum** of 15 years upon conviction.
Somehow I expect nothing will be done since there is no new autopsy.
and solicite the aid of Dr. Hayes to prove Danny Smith's original theory that Lauren was thrown from the cliff. We also learn that it is typical of all investigations about deaths from falls at Inspiration Point to conclude that unless the edge is disturbed, the death had to be a suicide (jump) or a throw. And then there is the case of the missing rock which started all of this to begin with.
A point that not even Geragos thought important. Keep in mind that he never brought it up. And he was at IP with everyone else. If he didn't care, why should anyone else?
If we are listening to Ken, we shouldn't be concerned with any of this. After all, our Colorado authorities have been unfair to Ken so it is completely acceptable to allow the California authorities to pass that same kind of unfairness along to Cam.
It's a valid point. You don't see to mind that Ken was illegally, IMO, prevented from practicing law. Why should he care that you claim Cam is being framed?
Oh, that just makes all kinds of sense.
It does if you look at it objectively.
This is too funny, though I don't think Ted intended it to be so.
Ken:
Even atheists have less of an "anything goes" attitude, except as it pertains to irrelevancies like sexual mores.
Ted:
What blather! OF COURSE atheists have an "anything goes" attitude, as the above comment CLEARLY illustrates.
How so? Ken is a deist, not an atheist.
And Christians do NOT have such an attitude (except perhaps in the demented imagination of Ken Smith).
And numerous examples from Ted's self-admitted past.
I think Ted's in trouble with Geragos. Ted's taken to "attacking" me on misc.legal.
There is no way for me to KNOW why he's suddenly taken this action, but the time line is such that Geragos would have been informed of the complaint I filed. I expect that Geragos chewed Ted a new one, adding evidence to the belief that Ted lied about there being any H-Bomb class evidence.
Well, Ted, you have only yourself to blame. You claimed there was such evidence, then you claimed Geragos withheld the evidence from the jury. If you were telling truth, Geragos deserves what he gets. If you were lying, then you deserve what you get. I have no sympathy either way.
I just checked the K00K blog. It shows how little Lauren meant to any of them.
Lauren's birthday came and went without a mention, but 37 people they never knew are murdered and they make an entry about it.
Complete strangers are more deserving of recognition than little Lauren was or is. They truly are sick and twisted!
THE COLUMBINE SYNDROME
November 8, 2000. Young Lauren Sarene Key passes away, after having been either thrown or pushed, or mysteriously tripping to her death from the top of an oceanside cliff. Few even notice. Even fewer cared. Fewer still can imagine the terror she felt.
Five years later, even her family didn't care enough to publicly acknowledge what would have been her tenth birthday.
April 17, 2007. Thirty-two people were gunned down on a college campus by a depressed lunatic. The wall-to-wall cable news coverage still hasn't stopped. (Thankfully, they are finally "over" Anna Nicole.)
And what could be more surreal? The family that lost Lauren, and didn't even acknowledge her on her birthday in their blog (and didn't even put up a memorial at all until a competitor shamed them), posted a note of condolence for thirty-two people they never even met.
What's so special about these 32 kids? Thirty-five Americans are murdered every single day. http://www.nationmaster.com/grap...ders-per- capita. According to Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily (not exactly the most reliable source), over 4,000 Americans are murdered by illegal aliens every year.
Tragedies and injustices are suffered every day. But if it happens to you and you alone, you can count on suffering alone ... and in silence. Your suffering went by in an instant, but you have no more worries. Apart from your mother, they don't even miss you any more.
From the K000000K Blob:
Ken, you are a disturbed man. The tragedy that has befallen Lauren's family can not be weighed by your insistence that the family should openly celebrate her birthday or mourn her loss on a website.
Yet, they put up a memorial right after Loretta and CG shamed them. Serendipity? Yah, right.
Sarah, Cam and all of Lauren's relatives can not be judged by whether or not they fulfill your sick need to watch them do so publicly.
I have neither the need nor the desire to watch anyone suffer or grieve. I do, however, note both the incongruity and the barbarity of going out of one's way to offer condolences for a large group, but not individuals. It's what I call the Columbine Syndrome.
Lauren is not only missed on her birthday and the day of her death. Lauren is missed every single day that she has been gone. You can't calculate that loss nor is it appropriate that you would try.
Which is, of course, why both Ted and Geragos were so reluctant to say her name, right? Rather, they have both gone out of their way to dehumanize her.
For us to extend our condolences to others who have suffered sudden and incomprehensible losses is something we feel compelled to do and do not apologize for.
On average, thirty-five families bury a murder victim every day. The pain of the VaTech families is no more or no less. If we cared as much about individual victims, our history would be decidedly less bloody.
Comments are suspended until further notice. We simple don't have the time to deal with you right now.
Translated, "I know you're right, and don't have a credible response."
Once again. Our prayers go out to those who have suffered horrendous losses at Virginia Tech.
Once again, condolences should go out to everyone, or not at all.
Cross-post from the udder blog:
RL: Ken, it would really amaze me if people measured a person's love for a child by whether or not they publicly celebrate their bithday on the internet!
As it would me. What I find so amazingly absurd here is that, whenever you have a mass tragedy, everyone and their brother is clambering over each other like abject fools to express their deepest sympathy, but when it happens to just one, no one even raises an eyebrow.
Columbine affected us personally. I worked with the father of one of the victims. I had several (non-victim) Columbine families as clients. My wife often worked less than a mile from C.H.S., and knew many of the victims' families. We saw what happened in the aftermath. For us, private expressions of sympathy were natural and appropriate. But were their deaths, though tragic and senseless, any more so than that of another young man we knew who was clipped by a drunk driver? To the victims of Columbine, there is a massive memorial; to Kingfisher, there is nothing more than a roadside cross in disrepair.
The obligatory tribute to the VaTech kids is particularly incongruous here -- as bizarre as the order that American flags be flown at half-staff, and the wholesale excoriation of Republican presidential candidates for failing to express their sympathies quickly enough on their websites -- especially, in proper context.
I merely point out the disturbing inconsistency in the behavior of Team Cam throughout this saga. For more than a year, Ted consistently refused to refer to Lauren by name -- which is precisely what Geragos did at trial, according to Shannon Farren. This is a well-known lawyer's trick: Make the victim a thing, and the perp a person. He's not "Mr. Brown" or even "Cameron"; he's "Cam." She's not "Lauren"; she's "her" or "the girl." And Kent and Moe called Ted on it, which apparently is why Kent is not allowed to post here: He asks too many good questions, but doesn't have the legal knowledge to be useful to Team Cam. After all, RL, we don't know how many garages you have burgled in your day; logically speaking, it would not affect the validity of your observations in the slightest if that figure extended into the hundreds.
With that backdrop, it is noteworthy that the blog and Free Cam Brown website were always all about "poor Cam," and the Internet tribute to Lauren didn't even appear until the competitors (http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com) pointed out that Lauren's tenth birthday had come and gone without even an acknowledgement. It would logically follow that Team Cam was shamed into putting it up, as it appears to have been done as only an afterthought. Ted keeps telling us that he is this Internet guru -- he even traced me to Tahiti (whilst I was sitting in front of the fire at home, fervently wishing he was right ) -- and as such, I would have expected a much more professional and thoughtful effort if it was a long-planned endeavor.
The unbridled umbrage that Team Cam expresses toward my comments seeks only to mask this inconsistency, and does nothing to explain it. And for our Ted to feel the grief that only a parent would for a young child he may have only met once or twice is well outside the known parameters of his personality. He's not exactly the type who goes to "chick flicks."
Good morning. I am going to start an open thread for updates and comments. This comment section is getting ridiculously long.
I have an editorial to write for the new entry. BBS.
Movin' on up to a new thread. ^^^^
Post a Comment