Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you keeping Laurens memory alive and keeping the trial covered. We who were a part of Laurens short little life loved her so much and still miss her. It is nice to see that there are people out there who are concerned Laurens story. God Bless you. Thank you!
Well, his next court appearance is 12/19 so I would venture a good guess that the retrial won't happen before the year ends. With the Christmas holidays, I would say the earliest date would be the beginning of next year.
Latest word is Feb. 23rd for the next hearing. Looks as if Cameron is doing all he can to avoid another trial. I don't really blame him. Everyone on the jury found him guilty of a crime, so he's probably not in a big hurry to get a jury that can agree on what crime he committed.
Guilty or not, Cameron has been waiting far too long for his trial. Yes, it's 100% his own doing, but even so, this shows how even with a speedy trial waiver, there should be a time limit.
Well, it was only a prelim, again. The web site was a bit inaccurate unfortunately.
Denise Nix, 2/23:
Brown was in court today for a pretrial, and is currently scheduled to return again March 4 for another pretrial. This is all very typical and not uncommon - especially when dealing with bigger cases that have a lot of evidence. I can't say exactly what causes delays, but I do know that the lawyers and the judge have to put aside a big chunk of time for cases like this. Currently, the prosecutor is engaged in a double-defendant Rolling Hills murder trial that is expected to take months, so I wouldn't expect Brown's retrial anytime soon.
MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — A man was convicted of murder Thursday for throwing four young children to their deaths from a coastal Alabama bridge last year, with the jury needing only 40 minutes to reach a verdict.
Lam Luong, the 38-year-old defendant who emigrated from Vietnam as a teenager, presented no defense witnesses during the week's proceedings and declined to speak at his trial in Mobile.
Prosecutors charged that Luong threw the four children — ages 4 months to 3 years — from the top of an 80-foot-high span of a Gulf coast bridge on Jan. 7, 2008, after an argument with his common-law wife, Kieu Phan. Three of the children were his and the fourth was his wife's with another man. ...
Phan, 23, told jurors Monday that her common-law husband laughed when he told her that the children — while still reported missing — would never be found.
"He kept laughing," she said, bursting into tears when color photographs of the children were flashed on a screen.
More at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iioBJL5jc1D1eDEI6v6oHEvu8kdQD9718VCO2
I can't imagine this one staying very long on the KKK blog:
Cynical Heathen: For the majority, religiosity appears to be a superficial, fear driven psychological means of alleviating chronic stress and anxiety created by an insecure societal environment. It is readily and normally cast off when socioeconomic conditions are sufficiently benign. To put it another way, most humans are religious only when their financial situation is deficient enough to prod them to look for help from the beyond. Theo-supernaturalism is best understood as self-aggrandizement; it is neither the noble self sacrifice adherents prefer to feel that it is nor the inane self sacrifice some skeptics think it is. It follows that most who claim to serve god actually want god to serve them, a truth they and their leaders are loath to admit for fear of exposing mass faith for what it really is.I thought you knew Cam, not Ted.
Just look at him, Bill: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg. He makes sin look good by comparison. There's a fair chance that he is either gay or in danger of leaning that way, but with a face like that, the only way he could get laid was through a glory hole. While his money situation might have been adequate (he is in telecom, so the 401(k) might have taken a beating in recent years), when you have to go home every night to a Marriott in Cleveland or a flat you share with your mother, there is a gaping hole in your life. Without a companion to share life with, the world is a pretty empty place.
Ted's god always tells him what he wants to hear, which is why this Cam Brown thingy has been so traumatic for him. He has always been smug, and has always maintained that outcomes he liked personally constituted "justice," despite their objective lack thereof. But now, he is faced with the fact that the Camster has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for seven years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that he proclaims is an "accident." If that is true -- unlike you, I don't know Cam from Bernie Schwartz, and don't feel a pressing need to pass judgment -- it is utterly incompatible with the notion of a just and activist god. The question I pose is one he is loath to answer, as all the answers he could offer are double-plus ungood.
Don't forget the insecurity factor. Most Christians are doubters. They need (and even crave) each other's reinforcement. They take pride in a Pascal -- who was undeniably bright, but didn't have the advantage of knowing what we know now. They try to convert other brilliant men like Jefferson and Franklin posthumously; they would would laugh at what Ted believes. Ted has expressed honest admiration for my intellect before (and, sincerely regrets it!) and, like Dr. Robert Bowman from the Christian Research Institute (and son of the noted 9/11 truther), can't understand why I can't believe. Hence, the hard-sell you see on this page. Reason as religion and vice-versa is inconceivable to them. They are reduced to tripe like this:
Ted: What, you WANT to to spend an eternity of torment in hell???
The universe can indeed get along without you just fine and dandy. What you are being offered is a PRIVILEGE. One day you will realise [sic] that. We pray that you will do so before it is too late.
But, save that you receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, your soul will be tormented in hell for eternity.Unlike poor Ted, I've gotten old enough and mature enough (he IS older than me, but growing up is strictly optional) to have gotten over myself. I'm simply not that important and certainly, not so to a god capable of creating an entire universe. To believe that we deserve to outlive death is not mere hubris, but an insufferable form of it.
I look at this photograph ( http://i641.photobucket.com/albu...e/ scottshot.jpg ), and pause. It is simply not possible for me to reconcile this image with the notion of a just, loving, and activist God. Not only can I not expect to receive divine aid, but I cannot reasonably expect to hope for it. Accordingly, if I want a better world, it has to begin with me.
Kris: or anyone else that is interested in having real debate.
There's not a lot to debate here. While I wholeheartedly agree that it has taken far too long to bring Cam to retrial, it is his own fault, as the delays have all been tactical in nature, related to "judge-shopping." That probable cause to hold him pending trial exists is implicitly established by the fact that the jury hung 10-2 for conviction on Murder Two, and the fact that his father is a millionaire is reason enough to conclude that he is a potential flight risk. No one here has been able to present any evidence that serious due process violations have occurred, although much has been left to be desired regarding their treatment of him (denying access to showers during the trial, and the transparent attempt to frame him on a weapons charge; fortunately, that went nowhere). Team Cam claims to have evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct, but without disclosure, and especially in light of Ted's many bizarre conspiracy theories and consistent disdain for inconvenient facts, I am forced to take them with a pillar of salt.
I don't know Cam Brown from Adam Ant, and don't have a position on whether he is innocent or guilty; I prefer to leave that determination to twelve of his peers. However, I would even extend the protections of the rule of law to the Devil himself, as I know that none cannot stand upright against the wind without it (Ted disagrees). That having been said, perhaps you might be willing to take a position on the questions Ted refuses to address:
1) Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'
2) Do you believe that, using the rules which have been reiterated for about the fortieth time by the United States Supreme Court in Caperton, it does or does not violate the Due Process Clause for a judge-defendant in a case to decide it where (1) s/he is a defendant in tort in that suit, (2) the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, (3) at least sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and (4) the appeal is statutorily required to be heard by another court? If you want to study law, this is a good place to start.
Ted: This site is about Cameron Brown. You said that you are not concerned about Cameron Brown. Therefore, you have nothing meaningful to contribute here.
This has been true for five years -- back when this discussion was on USENET-- Ted. I haven't changed my position. Why, all of a sudden, is it so important now?
Just admit it: You don't like losing, and you've had your Akubra handed to you.
Ted: And the only two reasons that some of your posts get poofed here is that you are abusive, or else you are off-topic.
Ken: That's not true, and we both know it. You accused me of equivocation, which makes a response on-topic. To refresh your memory:
Ted: Tsk, tsk, Ken. Equivocating again, I see. A CRIMINAL conspiracy is something other than what is envisioned when one uses the unqualified term "conspiracy".
Ted, that statement is blindingly stupid, even for you. Wikipedia will suffice here:
In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means. The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be required.
A non-criminal conspiracy is a pretty odd duck, Ted. Most people would have difficulty in even describing one, to say nothing of their envisioning it first.
Ted: What I am talking about would almost certainly fit the definition of "criminal conspiracy".
You haven't just vacillated on this point -- you have OSCILLATED! Here's a representative example, from Jul. 6, 2008:
Moe: Oh boy here we go with the conspiracy crap again. Ted: What "conspiracy crap"?
Again, from Feb. 8, 2006: Ken: When you think about it, this is a silver stake in the heart of your conspiracy theory. Ted: What "conspiracy theory"?
Here's another particularly delightful exchange, from Nov. 25, 2005: Kent: You believe it is not, but then in order to keep the fantasy of a conspiracy alive in your mind, you have to. Ted: What "conspiracy"? I've never asserted that there is any conspiracy here. Kent: You've implied it MANY times. Ted: Nope. If there's any conspiracy, I don't know anything about it. Kent: You've never used the word conspiracy, but you've worded your posts in such a way as to strongly imply there is one. This is the first time you've bothered to actually come out and post that there is no conspiracy.
Ken [commenting as a follow-up]: If there is no conspiracy, no coordinated objective, no reason for the LASD detectives, medical examiner, forensic accountant, and other expert witnesses (e.g., Dr. Hayes) to lie, n reason for Craig Hum to go after CaMORON, and no reason for the judge in the case to be be unfair to him, then why is he still in jail, if he's as blind, stinking innocent as you are alleging, Ted?
While I freely acknowledge that the safeguards built into American law are completely inadequate to protect a citizen in the face of a criminal conspiracy entered into by corrupt public officials, they are normally sufficient when there is not. What you assert here makes absolutely no fuckin' sense, Ted -- especially, if there is no active conspiracy and no motive to engage in one.
Also: Of course, we do. CaMORON Brown was charged and then indicted for the apparent cold-blooded murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter. He has been sitting in jail for over two years awaiting trial, and it is his own damn fault for not revoking his speedy trial waiver.
We cannot infer anything untoward in this, as Ted has now specifically and emphatically disavowed any claim that there's any kind of conspiracy among public officials to violate Cam's rights. If there are any flaws, they are endemic to our decrepit Third World legal system. [end of quote]
Really, Ted -- your attempt to parse words smacks of insanity; it sounds as though you change your position about as often as you change your shorts. When it doesn't serve your purpose, there isn't any conspiracy ... but when it does....
Ted: And the only two reasons that some of your posts get poofed here is that you are abusive, or else you are off-topic.
Ted: Ken, I believe that readers who are not well-acquianted with you should be made aware that you were asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board when you applied to become a lawyer in that state. The reader is invited to judge, based on your conduct here, whether or not this was a reasonable request. (BTW, Ken refused to submit to the examination, and his application to become a lawyer was DENIED because of it.)
And this isn't an abusive ad hominem attack? And how is this on-topic?
So, what is the rule of law here? Ted is free to level off-topic, abusive ad hominem attacks, but whenever someone calls him on his lies and documents them, it suddenly becomes "abusive?"
Ted, you have finally graduated to mullah-class insanity. Kim Jong-il and Ali Khamenei couldn't be prouder.
MockTed Ahmadinejad strikes again!!!!! Four posts, made to disappear.
Why are you so afraid of the documented facts, Ted?
Speaking of insights into one's character, how is this off-topic?
Ted: Ken, you have BELITTLED much, but you haven't debunked anything
Ken: Of course, I have. You stated as follows:
Ted Kaldis, Jun. 24, 2009: Moreover, I have pointed out that, as the Roman Catholic church has not denied (and does not deny) the diety of Christ, we can nevertheless consider them to be our Christian brethren, despite our differences.
Ken: That is, of course, in direct contrast to the position you have taken for at least ten years, as evidenced by this representative USENET exchange:
Teresita [from USENET]: No I've always been a faithful Catholic. Ted Kaldis, Jul. 6, 1999: Yes, we know. That is why you need to get saved.
If Teresita is your sister in Christ, why on Earth would she need to "get saved?"
Debating with you is like debating Humpty Dumpty, only weirder. Your position is whatever you need it to be at that moment, and words only mean whatever you need them to mean. And when you told Solar to "f*** the dictionary definition...."
You are in your own little corner of insanity, Ted; I rather enjoy having my own real-world Looking Glass. 8)
Ted, shouldn't you learn a little logic before claiming that you can wield it?
Ted: Is it? It's just a matter-of-fact recounting of the facts.
Logic is an undiscovered country for you, Ted. I've pointed this out to you scores of times, but while ignorance is temporary, stupid is forever. --------------------------------- Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person)
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.
More of the censorship wars at http://cameronbrowncase.blogspot.com/ and http://www.haloscan.com/comments/caseinsider/6350908546922578330/
Ken: If I can pick and choose the facts to be considered, I can prove to a certainty that Cam Brown murdered Lauren.
Ted: No you can't.
Let me emend that statement to be more precise. Under the specified circumstances, I could prove that Cameron John Brown murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren in cold blood to a legal certainty.
Ted: Remember, even the "professionals" couldn't do that.
They didn't enjoy the conditions I specified -- the ones you are attempting to impose here with your Ahmedinejad-class censorship. Think of how Cam's trial would have gone if the only evidence presented was that favoring the prosecution. The jury almost convicted Cam WITH your top-drawer attorney. Take away your experts, your attorney's objections, and testimony favorable to Cam, and do you honestly think that he would have stood a chance?
Ted: BECAUSE CAM DIDN'T MURDER LAUREN!
Unless you were there, you don't know that, Ted.
Ted: So they went out and manufactured some "facts" of their own.
Precisely my objection with what you are doing, Ted. It is manifestly unfair for you to maliciously cast aspersions upon my honesty, integrity, and even sanity without giving me the opportunity to demonstrate that you are a sociopath and hypocrite, and that you are fabricating the "facts" you need to make your case against me.
Preservation of comments from the Kook Kaldis Klan blog:
Ken: Every time I prove that you are a liar, you "poof" the post.
Ted: Quit the nonsense, Ken.
When you quit lying, Ted. If you are going to accuse me of lying when I say that you are a liar, proof that you are a liar is logically on-topic -- even when the point of your dishonesty is driven home by satire -- but then again, "logic" has always been an undiscovered country for you.
You lie by omission. You lie by commission. You lie frequently, and unabashedly. You are so unreliable as a repository of fact that it's gotten so that, when you claim that the sky is blue, I am inclined to demand a second opinion. You know this to be true, and you know that the many on USENET who have had to endure you know it to be true.
Remember Joe Marino? You accused your brother in Christ (that is, if you are part of the body of Christ -- a highly dubious proposition at best), without any semblance of acceptable evidence, of coming back to the Calvary Chapel boards when he said he wouldn't. If you can accuse him of lying on your suspicion alone, why is it unfair for me to point out that you also declared that you were leaving USENET ... and returned shortly thereafter, like a bad penny? You lied, and even had the temerity to denounce others as liars for the same conduct.
As expected, Denise is on the job -- even if no one else is:
Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum, who handled Brown's first trial, said Friday that the only difference the court location will have is that jurors won't be as familiar with South Bay locations when witnesses mention them.
However, he does expect that the change of venue will help the trial move along faster since Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor presides over lengthy trials only, and court can be in session all day.
One thing that may be different, depending on how Pastor rules on a pending motion, is that the jury may hear from witnesses who will say Brown had temper and anger issues - especially in regard to girlfriends, Hum said.
"There are some witnesses that have come forward since the last trial," Hum said.
For Brown, the biggest change will be that he is no longer represented by high-profile attorney Mark Geragos.
With funds tapped from Brown's family, Geragos bowed out. However, an associate who tried the first case along with him, Pat Harris, was appointed by Torrance Superior Court Judge Mark Arnold to handle the case on the county's dime.
She's even given Ted some press which, on the face of it, doesn't exactly help his cause:
Meanwhile, on the outside, his supporters - including his wife and her brother - have continued their efforts to keep Brown's case in the spotlight.
In long letters to media outlets and others, as well as on the Internet, Brown's brother-in-law details what he perceives to be unfair treatment of Brown by prosecutors and news reporters. At the same time, he focuses on nuances in the evidence that he believes prove Brown's innocence.
That 2003 mug shot doesn't help his reputation much, but the core story seems reasonably fair. More importantly, she alludes to the fact that the prosecution has put the delays to good use, and may have shored up some of the holes in the first case. Having a second-stringer come to bat won't favor Cam, as there is an advantage to having a celebrity attorney.
As for the peanut gallery, those who know him are painting him as a sort of borderline Trig van Palin: Cameron, like I said earlier is a simple sort of man with a slower way of thinking than the average person. If he were a child today he would probably be in a very special class to help him understand the ways of the world and the ways of people. OUCH! Bill Cosby called it "slow class."
I have followed this trial, the facts of the case and the on-line campaign by his relatives to smear the mother and "prove" his innocence.
Personally, I think this "simple minded man" is so simple that he figured he could get away with murder so as not to have to pay child support.
People see the mud you throw at Sarah, Ted.
And this is the reaction pretty much everyone has: Take a walk out to the cliff where she supposedly jumped off. No one in their right mind would take a toddler out there!
Ted: BTW, Ken, are you aware that Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend?
Let's see, now... Hum has to be at least forty, Ted. Photo here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/forensics/bag_of_tricks/Dep-Dist-Attny-Craig-Hum200.jpg . I'm not sure why CG found him attractive....
Farren appears as though she is in her mid-thirties. And at least in L.A., where standards are astronomically high (ever see the talent at the pool at the Hard Rock in Vegas on a weekend?), you could argue that she has a face for radio: http://www.kfi640.com/timages/page/Shannon_Farren_148x152.jpg . Given the gushing descriptions of her during the first trial, I was expecting something more along the lines of a grizzled 24-year-old veteran of casting calls and directors' couches. She's cute, but nothing special for L.A.
Conclusion: Neither one is out of each other's league, but Hum doesn't seem capable of turning her head on looks alone. Robert Redford, he is not. One "film credit": as himself, on Court TV.
Unfortunately, even if your claim was true -- one wonders how you would have found this out without stalking her -- it isn't probative of anything, unless you can show that their relationship began before the trial. People do meet at parties, you know. They obviously had something in common, which would have gotten the initial conversation going. You can't infer anything sinister from that fact alone ... and let us not forget that you described Shannon as being scrupulously fair (except for the fact that her assessment of Patty was brutal).
Let's assume that John and Ken do cover the retrial. It will be tough for you to cry "Foul!" unless Shannon covers it; they have a half-dozen reporters, and not having Shannon reprise her role can't be a bad thing. At the end of the day, Team Cam should be delighted with this state of affairs, because you win either way.
Speaking of which, I'm surprised that Cam's case has never ended up on Greta sans Substance's show. After all, you do have an "in" there, and Lauren was every bit as cute as Caylee. This tells me that you don't have a slam-dunk case of official misconduct, because Greta would run with it if you did.
Craig Hum and Shannon Farren are apparently "involved." From the udder blog:
Ken: Conclusion: Neither one is out of each other's league, but Hum doesn't seem capable of turning [Shannon Farren's] head on looks alone. Robert Redford, he is not. One "film credit": as himself, on Court TV.
Ted: Get your head screwed on. Women are different, looks [of their man] aren't their primary concern. As Dennis Prager says, men look at the physical, women look at the fiscal.
Ted: Ken, BEHAVE! If it got poofed once, it will get poofed AGAIN. Drop the abuse, and it won't get poofed. (You ARE allowed to disagree here, but just remain civil.)
Through the lens of sarcasm, I'm making a point. It's something you don't understand, owing to the fact that the only thing you have ever fallen in love with is your own right hand. Have you ever noticed what is missing on Cam's personal blog? He cares about his dog, hiking, biking, sailing, and ostensibly, Lauren. But something is completely missing: the former Patty Kaldis!
You'll never understand because you have never had a successful relationship -- taking out the trash was too onerous, iirc. Cindi is the epicenter of my life. I don't go through a waking hour without thinking of her. We finish each other's sentences. We do everything together. She is an integral part of what I am. If Patty is anything more than a cash cow, she belongs in that blog.
The only conclusion I can draw is the one you are infuriated by: that there is merit to the inference that Cam is a gold-digger, and Shannon Farren's de facto characterization of her as trailer trash is not without foundation.
Are you ashamed of Patty, Ted? If she looks like a carbon copy of you with dishwater-grey hair, I can understand why you are so highly motivated to keep her hidden.
Ted: On the other hand, you're a guy. You see things differently
Not really, Ted. Studies have shown that certain characteristics are considered attractive in the opposite sex, as demonstrated by photographic studies (where you don't know anything about the subject).
Ted: Get your head screwed on. Women are different, looks [of their man] aren't their primary concern. As Dennis Prager says, men look at the physical, women look at the fiscal.
As if either of you know anything about women. You've been married to your right hand and/or your Bible for the past forty years, and Dennis is working on his third divorce.
Besides, Cam "First, I look at the purse" Brown seems to be an exception to your rule. Cuties for fun, your otherwise-on-the-way-to-being-an-old-maid sister for support.
Another post likely to be excised from the Kook Kaldis Klan blog:
Ted: (And please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.)
ROTFLMAO!!! He who is without sin, may cast the first stone.
If your own rule (first, women look at the purse) holds, then Patty must have married Cam for his money ... but as has been established, he really didn't have two nickels to rub together and, given his job as a modern stevedore, he wouldn't be in a financially sound position for a long time. Moreover, if your other rule (men are primarily concerned with physical attractiveness) holds, then Patty should be attractive enough that it would make sense for a photo of their wedding ought to be on "Cam's personal blog." As such, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes -- either about your rules, or about Patty. And if we can trust Shannon Farren on this score -- you admitted that at the outset, she was fair, and this information came from the first day of the trial -- Patty bore a frightening resemblance to Norbert's wife, and the first approximation of this ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg ) with dishwater-grey shoulder-length hair is a fair (and, fairly-disturbing) visual. Given the descriptions of Sarah and the Baywatch Babe -- both were younger than Cam, and considerably more attractive from a physical perspective than your otherwise-on-her-way-to-being-an-old-maid sister -- the only logical conclusion is that Cam married her for her money, and she married Cam because she wasn't going to get another offer any time soon.
These are your rules we are using, shallow as they are.
Why can't you just admit that you don't have the first freakin' clue about love and romance, not having been there before?
Ted: Ken, BEHAVE! If it got poofed once, it will get poofed AGAIN. Drop the abuse, and it won't get poofed.
It never ceases to amaze me as to how all of your abusive ad hominem remarks are somehow appropriate, but my fair (but unflattering) comments constitute improper conduct. Different weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
Another one sure to die on the cutting-room floor at the KKK Blog:
anony: Shannon was fair for only a very short time at the beginning of the trial. Then she changed drastically - she went from reporting both sides to only telling the prosecutor's side and instead of taking notes during the testimony, she would sit down with the prosecutor's paralegal during the breaks and write furiously. All this began after a few days of testimony, but given that there was a week recess after two days of testimony (the Judge had a vacation) the change in her reporting “coincidentally” occurred at about the same time they started dating.
Given how "fair and balanced" this blog is, you scarcely have cause for complaint. Ted makes Shannon Farren seem like Walter Cronkite, by comparison. (Also, Ted makes Godzilla look like Megyn Kelly, by comparison....)
Ted: (And please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.)
Ken: Different weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
On sober second thought, to assume that your "LORD" is the LORD of the Bible is a manifestly unwarranted conclusion, Ted. One need look no further than your life and conduct to prove this fact beyond cavil.
Ken: Ted makes Shannon Farren seem like Walter Cronkite, by comparison.
Ted: On the other hand, Ted is NOT a professional reporter.
No, Ted is just a compulsive liar, who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30423343&postID=9098557844332004069&isPopup=true
Ted: Moreover, in order for this comment to make sense, one must necessarily concede that Shannon's reporting is in some sense wanting.
Not necessarily. Walter Cronkite's work was several cuts above any of today's "reporters." FAUX News has obliterated the concept of objective news reporting, by hopelessly blurring fact and opinion and turning the network news department into a profit center. Competent reporters like Greg Palast and Sy Hersh are a dying breed.
Compared to this travesty of a blog, FAUX News constitutes professional reporting.
Why should I be "corrected," when I am right and we both know it?
It wasn't me who had to replace this photo ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg ) with a Photo-shopped shot of a baby giving people the finger because everyone kept commenting on how b*tt-f*ck*n'-UGLY (*st*r*sks used to deceive your Bugblatter-class god) you were.
If Patty and you have the same father (as you are fraternal twins, that need not be the case), there will be a familial resemblance. Genetics 101. As such, in light of that photo and Shannon Farren's observation that Patty was "a large woman" who was as slovenly as you appear in that photo and who sported dishwater-gray hair (an observation seconded by courtroom observers), a photo of you with shoulder-length dishwater-gray hair would be a fair first approximation.
Under your rules (well, Prager's), both Patty and Cam were scraping the absolute bottom of the marital "barrel," as Cam didn't have two nickels to rub together and couldn't reasonably be expected to in the near future, and Patty was an otherwise-soon-to-be-old-maid who was nearly ten years older than him and, in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, exceedingly deficient in the physical attractiveness department. Under the Kaldis/Prager paradigm, both Cam and Patty were galaxy-class losers.
The physical attractiveness and comparative youth of Sarah and the Baywatch Babe suggests that Cam could "do better," under the Kaldis/Prager paradigm. The logical inference is that he married Patty for her exchequer -- money being something that, apparently, neither Sarah nor the Baywatch Babe had in over-abundance.
Unless Patty is so homely that she could stop trains with her looks, you'd expect to find a photo of her on "Cam's personal blog." You haven't been married (or, to the best of my knowledge, even close to being in love) and wouldn't know this, but those who have been tend to be rather surprised at this omission.
What I have suggested is that (a) you debunk this reasonable and logical series of inferences by adding a wedding photo to Cam's blog, or (b) simply admit that you and Prager don't have the first clue about affairs of the heart (Prager going on his third marriage, and exclusively marrying within the Jewish community, so that even if he is correct when referring to that community, the general rule may not apply).
For something to properly be "corrected," there must be a compelling reason to correct it. Uh, you have the floor, Ted.
Ken (as censored by Ted): No, Ted is just a [censored], who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at [censored]
Be it in China or California, the mark of the censor is an open confession of one's lack of faith in the coherence and persuasiveness of one's own arguments. The Massachusetts Bay Colony had to banish Roger Williams for his opinions because the elders couldn't refute them; it's not like words like "compulsive liar" (when specifically referring to Ted, and Ted alone) and websites like this ( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30423343&postID=9098557844332004069&page=1&isPopup=true ) setting forth the evidence for those claims are pornographic....
You can't win in a free, fair, and unfettered debate, and you know it. Not that it matters, given your staggering lack of Internet sophistication....
Sure, you can keep the ugly truth off of this blog, but no one but members of the Kaldis clan (who already know that it is there from word-of-mouth) can even find it: do a Google search for "cameron brown murder trial," and the first hits you get are blogs by Loretta and her friends. From someone who claims to be so 'Net-savvy, one wonders how a mistake so bizarre and blindingly stupid could even be made. Think about it: If anyone who read Denise Nix's last article wanted to hear your side of the story, how would they ever find you? Adding that to the truly amateurish "Free Cam Brown" website -- which wasn't even cutting-edge in 1994 -- and one has to wonder why you even bother.
Moreover, if you insist upon being propagandists, who are not about to let the whole truth be known on this blog, you have no cause to complain about the proverbial snow on your neighbor's roof. Your own doorstep is unclean.
Ken (as censored by Ted): No, Ted is just a [censored], who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at [censored]
(Quote from a diary entry at Daily Kos): Markos at Daily Kos has likewise, repeatedly illustrated cases where it is the traditional media, and not the bloggers, who act amorally. In reality, blogs have some rather well established ethical standards in practice, including the ethical standrads of (1) disclosing sources through hyperlinks, (2) not suppressing meritorious comments that disagree with the author, (3) rallying around efforts of interested parties to suppress blog reporting, and (4) not accepting uncritically false or misleading statements of fact made by interested parties as mere opinions.
Why don't you let your readers decide whether it is "pointless abusive blather" or not? Are you so afraid that they will disagree that you can't take that chance?
They can find the uncensored post at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30423343&postID=9098557844332004069&isPopup=true , and make up their own mind. I reiterate:
Be it in China or California, the mark of the censor is an open confession of one's lack of faith in the coherence and persuasiveness of one's own arguments. The Massachusetts Bay Colony had to banish Roger Williams for his opinions because the elders couldn't refute them; it's not like words like "compulsive liar" (when specifically referring to Ted, and Ted alone) and websites like this ( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g...=1& isPopup=true ) setting forth the evidence for those claims are pornographic....
You can't even try to refute me without looking the consummate fool, and we both know it.
Ken: Competent reporters like Greg Palast and Sy Hersh are a dying breed.
Ted: Psuh. Get real. (Or maybe that's a little too much to ask from you.)
Reporters will tell you themselves (KnowYourCOurts is a regular source of story leads) that their craft has suffered greatly, mostly due to the fact that they don't have resources sufficient to follow their leads. Who has the resources to do another Juice v. Justice? Not the Times (the reporters said so). Certainly, not the Boston Globe. Legal reporting in particular has devolved into punditry, as the few reporters who possess the requisite training to understand the evidence are mere commentators. Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
I never know what's going to fall victim to the censor's knife over at the Kook Kaldis Klan blog:
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
Ted: In Ken Smith's world, receiving statements from an apparently unscrupulous prosecutor, and then reprinting those statements verbatim -- without even bothering to try to get a statement from the other side, constitutes "pretty good" reporting.
Compared to what I have seen -- and let's not forget the consistently dishonest editorial policy of this blog, which pretends to be a news source, albeit tragically amateurish -- it is exemplary. This kind of press conference is timed with reporters' deadlines in mind; the statement of a prosecutor with respect to a potentially high-profile case is "news," in and of itself. It is rare that the reporter has enough time to contact the other side before going to press; the average reader knows that a prosecutor's prattlings are not the final word.
As for the "unscrupulous" prosecutor, in the delusional, electric-beer-enhanced world of Theodore A. Kaldis, everybody this side of Vladimir Putin is a part of the conspiracy that Theodore refuses to call a conspiracy. Think back to Darden and Clark. I haven't seen any unusual fouls -- lawyers for the government "cross the line" every day, knowing that nothing will ever come of it -- committed by Hum. The practice of law has coarsened in the past thirty years; what is now "normal" would never have been countenanced back then. It is wrong by my metric, but I have a higher standard than "whatever you can get away with." By stark contrast, you are amoral (also, read "slimy") enough to fit in nicely.
As has been said, Ted, you are known to consistently ignore even judicially noticeable facts and incorrigible inferences from hide-bound SCOTUS precedent when it serves your selfish purposes; you can hardly have cause for complaint if Craig Hum should decide to behave like a Kaldis.
Denise Nix has done her job, at a level easily exceeding that of our local yokels. No, this isn't Greta sans Substance on Caylee, Natalee, JonBenet, Chandra, or [substitute pretty white girl here], but she doesn't have Greta's resources or legal training at her disposal. Speaking of which, if Hum's actions in this prosecution are nearly as outlandish as you claim, why isn't Greta all over this case, Ted? It's not like it wouldn't be pillow talk....
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
anony: Not if you care about some modicum of accuracy!!
First and foremost, you don't know how atrocious legal reporting is, on average. Second, as Ted is consistently delusional -- he won't even accept judicially noticeable facts that don't go his way -- and you have an awful lot of 'skin in the game' (after all, unless I miss my guess, we are talking about your husband here), you will understand if I don't regard your evaluation of Denise's work as entirely objective.
There is a vast gulf between "reporting" (basically, "he said X; she said not X") and "investigative reporting" (trying to figure out what X is), as evidenced by the missing jail library. Virtually every prison has a library, because it has to have one as a matter of law; constitutionally, prisoners cannot be deprived of the right of access to legal texts. That includes Supermax here in Florence, as was evidenced by white supremacist Matthew Hale's recent litigation here in the District of Colorado.
Based on that fact alone -- if the Hotel California didn't have a library, it would be more of a story than you think -- Denise Nix is justified in not having a particularly high degree of skepticism when L.A.S.D. officials claimed that Cam had a hardcover book in his room. As a reporter is interested in the "he said, she said" aspects of a story, getting that "fact" wrong (if the fact of the existence of a prison library is wrong, which would honestly astound me; you will understand my healthy skepticism, as it relates to your claim) is hardly unremarkable or necessarily a failure of care on her part.
What I find problematic is where reporters only talk to one side in a controversy when they have reasonable access, as evidenced by recent reporting on Mark Brennan's case before our state's disciplinary board. In one instance, Christianity Today simply made up a "quote" from me without even bothering to talk with me (and you wonder why I have grown to despise evangelical Christians?) That is bad reporting. Denise is largely hamstrung when writing about incidents like the shiv, because defense attorneys shouldn't say anything and defendants in criminal cases should say less.
They've given Denise the time to do the job; iirc, by contrast, the Times guy showed up for one day, and the AP pool reporter didn't show at all. Her pieces have been succinct and for the most part accurate; remember that in the traditional print media, brevity is next to godliness. Unless we are talking about Michael Jackson, expecting more is a very big "ask" these days.
Now, let's compare her work with the editorial policy of this blog (which is an attempt at reporting the news, however amateurish). Actively censoring dissenting views on the basis of content? He who lives in a glass house should not be in the habit of throwing stones....
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
Ted: In Ken Smith's world
When we do a legal story at KnowYourCOurts.com, we do it right. We include documents filed with the court, so that anyone can check our work. Philosophically, we believe in letting the reader make up his or her own mind. But as a practical matter, that kind of documentation just isn't going to be found on a regular basis in the traditional media. If this were Michael Jackson, it would be different....
We honestly wish we could get better work out of the Fourth Estate, and do everything we can to facilitate their building on our work. The problem we face is grave -- to the point of threatening the very fabric of our Republic -- and doesn't begin or end with Cam Brown. You have a severe case of tunnel-vision (and are incorrigibly selfish), Ted. Get your fat head out (okay, it may be stuck) and see the bigger picture....
Ted: Ken, in my estimation, you are a veritable WHACK-JOB!
Another ad hominem ... watta shock! Ted, in my estimation -- one which is shared by virtually everyone on USENET who has had the singular misfortune of having encountered you -- you are a certifiable sociopath and incorrigible hypocrite.
Ted: You write with effusive praise about accounts the substance of which you have NO first-hand knowledge about.
First and foremost, my judgment is based, in no small part, on the claims you have made, both here and on USENET. Second, that alleged disability has not prevented you from libeling me for the past decade. Differing weights and measures -- whereas the god of the Bible detests them both, you and your god swear by them. Third, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Ted: And you pretend to speak authoritatively about the subject of these accounts, while at the same time acknowledging that their writers don't have the time or resources to cover their subject matter comprehensively.
Based primarily on your hysterical complaints, other reports, and documentation you and others have provided, and in light of my own rather extensive experience in dealing with reporters in the MSM, I can fairly judge the performance of Denise Nix. Denise has done a remarkably good job under the circumstances, when compared to the work of her colleagues. By stark contrast, you are fundamentally incapable of judging her fairly. You wouldn't be satisfied with anything short of a reporter serving as a mouthpiece for the paranoid conspiracy theories that even you shy away from when challenged, and displaying unbridled umbrage at ticky-tack procedural fouls that occur in every courtroom in Los Angeles on a daily basis. In short, you are not satisfied with anyone who doesn't see the world through your electric-beer-fogged rose-colored glasses.
The fundamental problem -- one which has been proven over and over and over again -- is that you are a compulsive liar. Even Geragoesthemoney has zero tolerance for your pathological and persistent insanity, as evidenced by his failure to file a habeas action in federal court.
Ted: Consequently, we can come to no other conclusion than that you are a mendacious prevaricator.
By the standard you use to judge me, Cam would have been found hanging from a noose four or five years ago.
Ted: Moreover, here is how someone might respond to my comments about your blatherings: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ka...dis/ Comment.mp3
How the rational person would respond to your comments about my reasoned arguments -- including the ones you dishonestly censor on the facile ground that you don't like their content and cannot respond rationally: "ROTFLMAO!!!!!"
Ted: Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, as the case may be), I don't have time to waste on responding to the BOLLOCKS that you post.
What colossally self-serving bovine excrement! You can let the statements stand without response. If you're really short on time, you can even forego the dishonest editing.
Ted: Now STFU and GTFOOH.
The audio you are looking for is at http://www.ez-tracks.com/getsong-songid-1269.html 8)
One more thing, Ted: Just remember that yours is a relatively remote corner of cyberspace, that most people couldn't find on a bet. Other blogs are more easily found. You don't have censorship power over the Daily Breeze site and especially, John and Ken. You are going to have to come to grips with rational critiques of your irrational and tendentious views.
Sure, you can censor here ... but what does that say about your confidence in your arguments, Chairman Cow?
I'll just use this one to preserve poofed posts, like this one is sure to be:
Ted: All they need do is look at your interaction with the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, and then look at your MANY legal actions (and their result) in response to that interaction. (Links furnished upon request.)
Ken: To judge my conduct fairly, one must have what you do not possess: (1) a grounding in the law sufficient to understand the issues being raised,
Ted: I would submit that Judge Edward Nottingham, Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless, the jurists of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and of the Colorado Supreme Court DO indeed have such a background.
Are you really that blindingly stupid, Ted? Every time you open your proverbial pie-hole, you compel me to revise my estimate of your intelligence downward.
Remember: Judges have 'skin in the game'. As Frederick Douglass put it:
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
What I am doing is the functional equivalent of the Iranian people, protesting in the street because their votes were not counted and the "election" was rigged. While "the law" is not always scrupulously objective -- certain statutes can be interpreted several ways, and there are gradations -- when a judge places his or her hands on the scales of justice for impure ends, it is usually obvious. By way of example, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), SCOTUS made the following salient observations:[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has "a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest" in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that "[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would cer tainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, cor rupt his integrity." …
On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitu tional level. …
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Consti tution requires recusal.Caperton, slip op. at 6, 16 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
It is difficult to imagine any fact situation any more extraordinary or extreme than a judge deciding an appeal in a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, at least sixteen non-conflicted judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal is required by statute to be heard by another court: the judicially noticeable facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055). Taken together, the rule of law precipitated from these cases is that, if you have enough money to afford the services of former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a state judge must recuse where "the prob ability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level," Caperton, slip op. at 16 … but if you are a man of modest means, forced to approach our courts in propria persona out of practical necessity, the Due Process Clause will not even afford you the barest protection of "the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has ‘a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest’ in a case." Id., slip op. at 6 (citation omitted).
Now, think about that for even half a minute. Any “rule of law” which depends in material part on one’s station in life (or, who you know) is not deserving of the appellation. (It's that promise of "equal justice under law" etched onto the frieze of the Supreme Court building.) The only rational (the concept of "rationality" is utterly foreign to you) conclusion is that the Supreme Court's rule is the right one (fwiw, there are about forty cases saying the same thing), and that the lower courts in question have ignored the Court's dictates.
Everyone who doesn't have skin in the game -- your personal vendetta against me, precipitated by our religious differences, blinds you to reason -- is going to look at the spectacle of Smith v. Mullarkey and admit that it is an appalling abuse of the judicial power. You, on the other hand, having lost so many arguments to me that we have both lost count, would rather cut your nuts off (as you will recall, you have said something to that effect) than have to admit that you have lost again. And that brings us to the subject of ethics, or more accurately, your complete lack thereof [to be continued presently].
As it is Sunday, and that big, fat hippo-crite shows no sign of repentance, it is apropos that he be reminded that in the Old Testament, the god of the Bible (NOT the one Ted worships, which is a soulless creature of his own devising) warned his people of the consequences of hard-heartedness: "He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished." (Proverbs 17:5 NIV)
Could the fate of Cameron Brown be Ted's punishment for his gloating?
You really need to stop having auto-erotic relations with your Bible and start reading it on occasion, Ted.
Ted: Moreover, in your case, this doesn't even come into play. The state has a compelling interest in making sure that those who are allowed to practise law are psychologically fit to do so.
But doesn't the accused have rights? Don't the agents of the government have to follow the law? Or is this just another case of Kaldis Rules™, where there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception?"
Ted: I don't want obstinate WHACK-JOBS who are unable to admit defeat becoming lawyers, and pushing losing cases FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing.
Are Judge Arnold and Judge Pastor free to disregard the hide-bound precedent of the United States Supreme Court in managing their courtrooms and rendering their verdicts? You squealed like the stuck pig (well, more like a walrus -- a pig would have a coronary if he had as much body fat as you) you are when Judge Arnold laughed at Geragos' ridiculous 995 motion. Why is there ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law" exception in Kaldis Rules™?
Listen to your own people whine: "Judge Arnold was so manifestly unfair to Cam (for instance, the trial transcript is full dialogue were Judge Arnold stated that he felt all kinds of laws do not apply to this case)." It is one thing to lose fair and square, but quite another to lose in a court where the judge employs the Bill of Rights as a makeshift tampon, and discovers her decision in her nether regions, contained in a five-year old, syphilis-encrusted tampon.
So what if Judge Arnold was unfair? "It's not a good idea to step in front of a barrelling 18-wheeler even if pedestrians lawfully have the right of way." Cam stepped into it, and under your rules, he deserves to get run over. And so what if the LASD blackmails Judge Pastor with a moral turpitude charge? You have to respect power, get on your knees, and expose your sphincter. PREACH IT, BROTHER TED!!! If you are going to get raped anyway, you might as well lie back and enjoy it ... right, Coach Knight?
And don't forget that other set of obstinate WHACK-JOBS who were unable to admit defeat, and who pushed a losing cause FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing. We call them our Founding Fathers.
And then, there is the consummate obstinate WHACK-JOB, who was unable to admit defeat and pushed a hopeless cause FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing. Remember William Wilberforce?
There have been so many times where I have seen kids who would have been better off if their mothers had just not involved the father (this is not a slam on fathers, my husband is a great one and totally vital to our kids) when the father is a sociopath, or when he takes custody more and more so that his child support can be less and less. Not every woman should be a mother and not every man a father. When I left my first abusive husband and moved 1/2 a state away, if for some reason I would have found out I was pregnant I would never have told him, because I believe he would have abused that child like he abused me. This poor mom was just trying to do the right thing, and he ruined her life. I hope he gets the death penalty.
I love you so much!! It seems like just yesterday that we were dancing around the living room putting on shows for our moms and playing with dolls under the dining room table. I love you more than anyone could ever imagine, and miss you so much! Life isn't that same without my closest cousin, and my best friend. You'll forever be in my heart. Being almost 18 and almost graduated doesn't seem possible without you by my side!! You would've been 15 today, beautiful!
R.I.P. Lala. Today I looked up at the sky and realized how beautiful it is, and I remembered it's because you're up there.
64 comments:
"Lauren who?" The udder blog missed her birthday yet again.
Thanks country girl....
YW, anon
Next hearing: 11/18.
At this rate, the State won't even have to bother with the expense of a trial.
If possible, please light a candle, as its 8 years since our dearly beloved Lauren left us.
Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you keeping Laurens memory alive and keeping the trial covered. We who were a part of Laurens short little life loved her so much and still miss her. It is nice to see that there are people out there who are concerned Laurens story.
God Bless you. Thank you!
So, if I understood it correctly, the hearing was schedulled for today. Did it happen? Any news?
I haven't found anything about yesterday's pre-trial hearing, but I'm still looking.
Still waiting for justice.
Well, his next court appearance is 12/19 so I would venture a good guess that the retrial won't happen before the year ends. With the Christmas holidays, I would say the earliest date would be the beginning of next year.
So now we're being fed spam? I guess Cameron's case has dropped to next to nothing.
I wish there was news. Pretrial again today. Next court date 1/6/09. Life in CJ one month at a time.
It certainly looks that way.
If there was H-Bomb class evidence that PROVES Cam's innocence, I would have expected him to want the trial to start ASAP.
Latest word is Feb. 23rd for the next hearing. Looks as if Cameron is doing all he can to avoid another trial. I don't really blame him. Everyone on the jury found him guilty of a crime, so he's probably not in a big hurry to get a jury that can agree on what crime he committed.
DB court tracker said 2/23 is the trial, not pretrial. Can it be?
Name:Brown, Cameron John
Next Court Date:2/23/2009
Action:Trial
We can hope.
Guilty or not, Cameron has been waiting far too long for his trial. Yes, it's 100% his own doing, but even so, this shows how even with a speedy trial waiver, there should be a time limit.
Waiting patiently...
Big news out of Australia. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28907455/
Well, it was only a prelim, again. The web site was a bit inaccurate unfortunately.
Denise Nix, 2/23:
Brown was in court today for a pretrial, and is currently scheduled to return again March 4 for another pretrial. This is all very typical and not uncommon - especially when dealing with bigger cases that have a lot of evidence. I can't say exactly what causes delays, but I do know that the lawyers and the judge have to put aside a big chunk of time for cases like this. Currently, the prosecutor is engaged in a double-defendant Rolling Hills murder trial that is expected to take months, so I wouldn't expect Brown's retrial anytime soon.
Sigh.
Even Ted is giving up. Not a single post from the Twins in almost two weeks.
Can't be good at the Brown compound.
This can't be good for Team Cam.
MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — A man was convicted of murder Thursday for throwing four young children to their deaths from a coastal Alabama bridge last year, with the jury needing only 40 minutes to reach a verdict.
Lam Luong, the 38-year-old defendant who emigrated from Vietnam as a teenager, presented no defense witnesses during the week's proceedings and declined to speak at his trial in Mobile.
Prosecutors charged that Luong threw the four children — ages 4 months to 3 years — from the top of an 80-foot-high span of a Gulf coast bridge on Jan. 7, 2008, after an argument with his common-law wife, Kieu Phan. Three of the children were his and the fourth was his wife's with another man. ...
Phan, 23, told jurors Monday that her common-law husband laughed when he told her that the children — while still reported missing — would never be found.
"He kept laughing," she said, bursting into tears when color photographs of the children were flashed on a screen.
More at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iioBJL5jc1D1eDEI6v6oHEvu8kdQD9718VCO2
He thought he could get away with murder. He'll think twice about that.....
IN JAIL!!!
Hmmmmm.... Not even a peep from Ted Kaldis, International Man of Misery. Maybe Dr. Evil has his mojo?
Another Easter has come and gone. Jesus is still MIA, the Camster is still in his cage, and Number Two (Ted's pastor) is still traveling incognito.
Dennis Prager says that how happy and/or pleasant you are is a testament to your religion. I tend to agree.
Not much of an advertisement for your religion, Ted.
Phil Spector was convicted of Murder Two today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector14-2009apr14,0,1475110.story
That news can't make Team Cam too comfortable....
I can't imagine this one staying very long on the KKK blog:
Cynical Heathen: For the majority, religiosity appears to be a superficial, fear driven psychological means of alleviating chronic stress and anxiety created by an insecure societal environment. It is readily and normally cast off when socioeconomic conditions are sufficiently benign. To put it another way, most humans are religious only when their financial situation is deficient enough to prod them to look for help from the beyond. Theo-supernaturalism is best understood as self-aggrandizement; it is neither the noble self sacrifice adherents prefer to feel that it is nor the inane self sacrifice some skeptics think it is. It follows that most who claim to serve god actually want god to serve them, a truth they and their leaders are loath to admit for fear of exposing mass faith for what it really is.I thought you knew Cam, not Ted.
Just look at him, Bill: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg. He makes sin look good by comparison. There's a fair chance that he is either gay or in danger of leaning that way, but with a face like that, the only way he could get laid was through a glory hole. While his money situation might have been adequate (he is in telecom, so the 401(k) might have taken a beating in recent years), when you have to go home every night to a Marriott in Cleveland or a flat you share with your mother, there is a gaping hole in your life. Without a companion to share life with, the world is a pretty empty place.
Ted's god always tells him what he wants to hear, which is why this Cam Brown thingy has been so traumatic for him. He has always been smug, and has always maintained that outcomes he liked personally constituted "justice," despite their objective lack thereof. But now, he is faced with the fact that the Camster has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for seven years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that he proclaims is an "accident." If that is true -- unlike you, I don't know Cam from Bernie Schwartz, and don't feel a pressing need to pass judgment -- it is utterly incompatible with the notion of a just and activist god. The question I pose is one he is loath to answer, as all the answers he could offer are double-plus ungood.
Don't forget the insecurity factor. Most Christians are doubters. They need (and even crave) each other's reinforcement. They take pride in a Pascal -- who was undeniably bright, but didn't have the advantage of knowing what we know now. They try to convert other brilliant men like Jefferson and Franklin posthumously; they would would laugh at what Ted believes. Ted has expressed honest admiration for my intellect before (and, sincerely regrets it!) and, like Dr. Robert Bowman from the Christian Research Institute (and son of the noted 9/11 truther), can't understand why I can't believe. Hence, the hard-sell you see on this page. Reason as religion and vice-versa is inconceivable to them. They are reduced to tripe like this:
Ted: What, you WANT to to spend an eternity of torment in hell???
The universe can indeed get along without you just fine and dandy. What you are being offered is a PRIVILEGE. One day you will realise [sic] that. We pray that you will do so before it is too late.
But, save that you receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, your soul will be tormented in hell for eternity.Unlike poor Ted, I've gotten old enough and mature enough (he IS older than me, but growing up is strictly optional) to have gotten over myself. I'm simply not that important and certainly, not so to a god capable of creating an entire universe. To believe that we deserve to outlive death is not mere hubris, but an insufferable form of it.
I look at this photograph ( http://i641.photobucket.com/albu...e/ scottshot.jpg ), and pause. It is simply not possible for me to reconcile this image with the notion of a just, loving, and activist God. Not only can I not expect to receive divine aid, but I cannot reasonably expect to hope for it. Accordingly, if I want a better world, it has to begin with me.
From the udder blog:
Kris: or anyone else that is interested in having real debate.
There's not a lot to debate here. While I wholeheartedly agree that it has taken far too long to bring Cam to retrial, it is his own fault, as the delays have all been tactical in nature, related to "judge-shopping." That probable cause to hold him pending trial exists is implicitly established by the fact that the jury hung 10-2 for conviction on Murder Two, and the fact that his father is a millionaire is reason enough to conclude that he is a potential flight risk. No one here has been able to present any evidence that serious due process violations have occurred, although much has been left to be desired regarding their treatment of him (denying access to showers during the trial, and the transparent attempt to frame him on a weapons charge; fortunately, that went nowhere). Team Cam claims to have evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct, but without disclosure, and especially in light of Ted's many bizarre conspiracy theories and consistent disdain for inconvenient facts, I am forced to take them with a pillar of salt.
I don't know Cam Brown from Adam Ant, and don't have a position on whether he is innocent or guilty; I prefer to leave that determination to twelve of his peers. However, I would even extend the protections of the rule of law to the Devil himself, as I know that none cannot stand upright against the wind without it (Ted disagrees). That having been said, perhaps you might be willing to take a position on the questions Ted refuses to address:
1) Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'
2) Do you believe that, using the rules which have been reiterated for about the fortieth time by the United States Supreme Court in Caperton, it does or does not violate the Due Process Clause for a judge-defendant in a case to decide it where (1) s/he is a defendant in tort in that suit, (2) the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, (3) at least sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and (4) the appeal is statutorily required to be heard by another court? If you want to study law, this is a good place to start.
From the udder blog:
Ted: This site is about Cameron Brown. You said that you are not concerned about Cameron Brown. Therefore, you have nothing meaningful to contribute here.
This has been true for five years -- back when this discussion was on USENET-- Ted. I haven't changed my position. Why, all of a sudden, is it so important now?
Just admit it: You don't like losing, and you've had your Akubra handed to you.
Censorship wars at de udder blog:
Ted: And the only two reasons that some of your posts get poofed here is that you are abusive, or else you are off-topic.
Ken: That's not true, and we both know it. You accused me of equivocation, which makes a response on-topic. To refresh your memory:
Ted: Tsk, tsk, Ken. Equivocating again, I see. A CRIMINAL conspiracy is something other than what is envisioned when one uses the unqualified term "conspiracy".
Ted, that statement is blindingly stupid, even for you. Wikipedia will suffice here:
In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means. The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be
required.
A non-criminal conspiracy is a pretty odd duck, Ted. Most people would have difficulty in even describing one, to say nothing of their envisioning it first.
Ted: What I am talking about would almost certainly fit the definition of "criminal conspiracy".
You haven't just vacillated on this point -- you have OSCILLATED! Here's a representative example, from Jul. 6, 2008:
Moe: Oh boy here we go with the conspiracy crap again.
Ted: What "conspiracy crap"?
Again, from Feb. 8, 2006:
Ken: When you think about it, this is a silver stake in the heart of your conspiracy theory.
Ted: What "conspiracy theory"?
Here's another particularly delightful exchange, from Nov. 25, 2005:
Kent: You believe it is not, but then in order to keep the fantasy of a conspiracy alive in your mind, you have to.
Ted: What "conspiracy"? I've never asserted that there is any conspiracy here.
Kent: You've implied it MANY times.
Ted: Nope. If there's any conspiracy, I don't know anything about it.
Kent: You've never used the word conspiracy, but you've worded your posts in such a way as to strongly imply there is one. This is the first time you've bothered to actually come out and post that there is no conspiracy.
Ken [commenting as a follow-up]: If there is no conspiracy, no coordinated objective, no reason for the LASD detectives, medical examiner, forensic accountant, and other expert witnesses (e.g., Dr. Hayes) to lie, n reason for Craig Hum to go after CaMORON, and no reason for the judge in the case to be be unfair to him, then why is he still in jail, if he's as blind, stinking innocent as you are alleging, Ted?
While I freely acknowledge that the safeguards built into American law are completely inadequate to protect a citizen in the face of a criminal conspiracy entered into by corrupt public officials, they are normally sufficient when there is not. What you assert here makes absolutely no fuckin' sense, Ted -- especially, if there is no active conspiracy and no motive to engage in one.
Also: Of course, we do. CaMORON Brown was charged and then indicted for the apparent cold-blooded murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter. He has been sitting in jail for over two years awaiting trial, and it is his own damn fault for not revoking his speedy trial waiver.
We cannot infer anything untoward in this, as Ted has now specifically and emphatically disavowed any claim that there's any kind of conspiracy among public officials to violate Cam's rights. If there are any flaws, they are endemic to our decrepit Third World legal system.
[end of quote]
Really, Ted -- your attempt to parse words smacks of insanity; it sounds as though you change your position about as often as you change your shorts. When it doesn't serve your purpose, there isn't any conspiracy ... but when it does....
More of the censorship wars:
Ted: And the only two reasons that some of your posts get poofed here is that you are abusive, or else you are off-topic.
Ted: Ken, I believe that readers who are not well-acquianted with you should be made aware that you were asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board when you applied to become a lawyer in that state. The reader is invited to judge, based on your conduct here, whether or not this was a reasonable request. (BTW, Ken refused to submit to the examination, and his application to become a lawyer was DENIED because of it.)
And this isn't an abusive ad hominem attack? And how is this on-topic?
So, what is the rule of law here? Ted is free to level off-topic, abusive ad hominem attacks, but whenever someone calls him on his lies and documents them, it suddenly becomes "abusive?"
Ted, you have finally graduated to mullah-class insanity. Kim Jong-il and Ali Khamenei couldn't be prouder.
MockTed Ahmadinejad strikes again!!!!! Four posts, made to disappear.
Why are you so afraid of the documented facts, Ted?
Speaking of insights into one's character, how is this off-topic?
Ted: Ken, you have BELITTLED much, but you haven't debunked anything
Ken: Of course, I have. You stated as follows:
Ted Kaldis, Jun. 24, 2009: Moreover, I have pointed out that, as the Roman Catholic church
has not denied (and does not deny) the diety of Christ, we can nevertheless consider
them to be our Christian brethren, despite our differences.
Ken: That is, of course, in direct contrast to the position you have taken for at least ten years, as
evidenced by this representative USENET exchange:
Teresita [from USENET]: No I've always been a faithful Catholic.
Ted Kaldis, Jul. 6, 1999: Yes, we know. That is why you need to get saved.
If Teresita is your sister in Christ, why on Earth would she need to "get saved?"
Debating with you is like debating Humpty Dumpty, only weirder. Your position is whatever you need it to be at that moment, and words only mean whatever you need them to mean. And when you told Solar to "f*** the dictionary definition...."
You are in your own little corner of insanity, Ted; I rather enjoy having my own real-world Looking Glass. 8)
Ted, shouldn't you learn a little logic before claiming that you can wield it?
Ted: Is it? It's just a matter-of-fact recounting of the facts.
Logic is an undiscovered country for you, Ted. I've pointed this out to you scores of times, but while ignorance is temporary, stupid is forever.
---------------------------------
Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person)
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.
More of the censorship wars at http://cameronbrowncase.blogspot.com/ and http://www.haloscan.com/comments/caseinsider/6350908546922578330/
Ken: If I can pick and choose the facts to be considered, I can prove to a certainty that Cam Brown murdered Lauren.
Ted: No you can't.
Let me emend that statement to be more precise. Under the specified circumstances, I could prove that Cameron John Brown murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren in cold blood to a legal certainty.
Ted: Remember, even the "professionals" couldn't do that.
They didn't enjoy the conditions I specified -- the ones you are attempting to impose here with your Ahmedinejad-class censorship. Think of how Cam's trial would have gone if the only evidence presented was that favoring the prosecution. The jury almost convicted Cam WITH your top-drawer attorney. Take away your experts, your attorney's objections, and testimony favorable to Cam, and do you honestly think that he would have stood a chance?
Ted: BECAUSE CAM DIDN'T MURDER LAUREN!
Unless you were there, you don't know that, Ted.
Ted: So they went out and manufactured some "facts" of their own.
Precisely my objection with what you are doing, Ted. It is manifestly unfair for you to maliciously cast aspersions upon my honesty, integrity, and even sanity without giving me the opportunity to demonstrate that you are a sociopath and hypocrite, and that you are fabricating the "facts" you need to make your case against me.
Article by Denise Nix yesterday can be found here:
http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/2009/06/update-cameron-brown-rpv-cliff-1.html
Jury selection to begin on July 9.
WMD
Jury selection's started!
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_12812661
Big shout-out to the Fat Pig!!!
Preservation of comments from the Kook Kaldis Klan blog:
Ken: Every time I prove that you are a liar, you "poof" the post.
Ted: Quit the nonsense, Ken.
When you quit lying, Ted. If you are going to accuse me of lying when I say that you are a liar, proof that you are a liar is logically on-topic -- even when the point of your dishonesty is driven home by satire -- but then again, "logic" has always been an undiscovered country for you.
You lie by omission. You lie by commission. You lie frequently, and unabashedly. You are so unreliable as a repository of fact that it's gotten so that, when you claim that the sky is blue, I am inclined to demand a second opinion. You know this to be true, and you know that the many on USENET who have had to endure you know it to be true.
Remember Joe Marino? You accused your brother in Christ (that is, if you are part of the body of Christ -- a highly dubious proposition at best), without any semblance of acceptable evidence, of coming back to the Calvary Chapel boards when he said he wouldn't. If you can accuse him of lying on your suspicion alone, why is it unfair for me to point out that you also declared that you were leaving USENET ... and returned shortly thereafter, like a bad penny? You lied, and even had the temerity to denounce others as liars for the same conduct.
Preserved in case of poofage:
As expected, Denise is on the job -- even if no one else is:
Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum, who handled Brown's first trial, said Friday that the only difference the court location will have is that jurors won't be as familiar with South Bay locations when witnesses mention them.
However, he does expect that the change of venue will help the trial move along faster since Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor presides over lengthy trials only, and court can be in session all day.
One thing that may be different, depending on how Pastor rules on a pending motion, is that the jury may hear from witnesses who will say Brown had temper and anger issues - especially in regard to girlfriends, Hum said.
"There are some witnesses that have come forward since the last trial," Hum said.
For Brown, the biggest change will be that he is no longer represented by high-profile attorney Mark Geragos.
With funds tapped from Brown's family, Geragos bowed out. However, an associate who tried the first case along with him, Pat Harris, was appointed by Torrance Superior Court Judge Mark Arnold to handle the case on the county's dime.
She's even given Ted some press which, on the face of it, doesn't exactly help his cause:
Meanwhile, on the outside, his supporters - including his wife and her brother - have continued their efforts to keep Brown's case in the spotlight.
In long letters to media outlets and others, as well as on the Internet, Brown's brother-in-law details what he perceives to be unfair treatment of Brown by prosecutors and news reporters. At the same time, he focuses on nuances in the evidence that he believes prove Brown's innocence.
That 2003 mug shot doesn't help his reputation much, but the core story seems reasonably fair. More importantly, she alludes to the fact that the prosecution has put the delays to good use, and may have shored up some of the holes in the first case. Having a second-stringer come to bat won't favor Cam, as there is an advantage to having a celebrity attorney.
As for the peanut gallery, those who know him are painting him as a sort of borderline Trig van Palin: Cameron, like I said earlier is a simple sort of man with a slower way of thinking than the average person. If he were a child today he would probably be in a very special class to help him understand the ways of the world and the ways of people. OUCH! Bill Cosby called it "slow class."
I have followed this trial, the facts of the case and the on-line campaign by his relatives to smear the mother and "prove" his innocence.
Personally, I think this "simple minded man" is so simple that he figured he could get away with murder so as not to have to pay child support.
People see the mud you throw at Sarah, Ted.
And this is the reaction pretty much everyone has: Take a walk out to the cliff where she supposedly jumped off. No one in their right mind would take a toddler out there!
Intriguing allegation from the KKK blog:
Ted: BTW, Ken, are you aware that Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend?
Let's see, now... Hum has to be at least forty, Ted. Photo here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/criminal_mind/forensics/bag_of_tricks/Dep-Dist-Attny-Craig-Hum200.jpg . I'm not sure why CG found him attractive....
Farren appears as though she is in her mid-thirties. And at least in L.A., where standards are astronomically high (ever see the talent at the pool at the Hard Rock in Vegas on a weekend?), you could argue that she has a face for radio: http://www.kfi640.com/timages/page/Shannon_Farren_148x152.jpg . Given the gushing descriptions of her during the first trial, I was expecting something more along the lines of a grizzled 24-year-old veteran of casting calls and directors' couches. She's cute, but nothing special for L.A.
Conclusion: Neither one is out of each other's league, but Hum doesn't seem capable of turning her head on looks alone. Robert Redford, he is not. One "film credit": as himself, on Court TV.
Unfortunately, even if your claim was true -- one wonders how you would have found this out without stalking her -- it isn't probative of anything, unless you can show that their relationship began before the trial. People do meet at parties, you know. They obviously had something in common, which would have gotten the initial conversation going. You can't infer anything sinister from that fact alone ... and let us not forget that you described Shannon as being scrupulously fair (except for the fact that her assessment of Patty was brutal).
Let's assume that John and Ken do cover the retrial. It will be tough for you to cry "Foul!" unless Shannon covers it; they have a half-dozen reporters, and not having Shannon reprise her role can't be a bad thing. At the end of the day, Team Cam should be delighted with this state of affairs, because you win either way.
Speaking of which, I'm surprised that Cam's case has never ended up on Greta sans Substance's show. After all, you do have an "in" there, and Lauren was every bit as cute as Caylee. This tells me that you don't have a slam-dunk case of official misconduct, because Greta would run with it if you did.
Craig Hum and Shannon Farren are apparently "involved." From the udder blog:
Ken: Conclusion: Neither one is out of each other's league, but Hum doesn't seem capable of turning [Shannon Farren's] head on looks alone. Robert Redford, he is not. One "film credit": as himself, on Court TV.
Ted: Get your head screwed on. Women are different, looks [of their man] aren't their primary concern. As Dennis Prager says, men look at the physical, women look at the fiscal.
Patty married Cam FOR HIS MONEY?!?
This one might not survive over at the KKK blog:
Ted: Ken, BEHAVE! If it got poofed once, it will get poofed AGAIN. Drop the abuse, and it won't get poofed. (You ARE allowed to disagree here, but just remain civil.)
Through the lens of sarcasm, I'm making a point. It's something you don't understand, owing to the fact that the only thing you have ever fallen in love with is your own right hand. Have you ever noticed what is missing on Cam's personal blog? He cares about his dog, hiking, biking, sailing, and ostensibly, Lauren. But something is completely missing: the former Patty Kaldis!
You'll never understand because you have never had a successful relationship -- taking out the trash was too onerous, iirc. Cindi is the epicenter of my life. I don't go through a waking hour without thinking of her. We finish each other's sentences. We do everything together. She is an integral part of what I am. If Patty is anything more than a cash cow, she belongs in that blog.
The only conclusion I can draw is the one you are infuriated by: that there is merit to the inference that Cam is a gold-digger, and Shannon Farren's de facto characterization of her as trailer trash is not without foundation.
Are you ashamed of Patty, Ted? If she looks like a carbon copy of you with dishwater-grey hair, I can understand why you are so highly motivated to keep her hidden.
This one did get poofed:
Ken: I'm not sure why CG found him attractive ...
Ted: On the other hand, you're a guy. You see things differently
Not really, Ted. Studies have shown that certain characteristics are considered attractive in the opposite sex, as demonstrated by photographic studies (where you don't know anything about the subject).
Ted: Get your head screwed on. Women are different, looks [of their man] aren't their primary concern. As Dennis Prager says, men look at the physical, women look at the fiscal.
As if either of you know anything about women. You've been married to your right hand and/or your Bible for the past forty years, and Dennis is working on his third divorce.
Besides, Cam "First, I look at the purse" Brown seems to be an exception to your rule. Cuties for fun, your otherwise-on-the-way-to-being-an-old-maid sister for support.
Another post likely to be excised from the Kook Kaldis Klan blog:
Ted: (And please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.)
ROTFLMAO!!! He who is without sin, may cast the first stone.
If your own rule (first, women look at the purse) holds, then Patty must have married Cam for his money ... but as has been established, he really didn't have two nickels to rub together and, given his job as a modern stevedore, he wouldn't be in a financially sound position for a long time. Moreover, if your other rule (men are primarily concerned with physical attractiveness) holds, then Patty should be attractive enough that it would make sense for a photo of their wedding ought to be on "Cam's personal blog." As such, the fact that there isn't one speaks volumes -- either about your rules, or about Patty. And if we can trust Shannon Farren on this score -- you admitted that at the outset, she was fair, and this information came from the first day of the trial -- Patty bore a frightening resemblance to Norbert's wife, and the first approximation of this ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg ) with dishwater-grey shoulder-length hair is a fair (and, fairly-disturbing) visual. Given the descriptions of Sarah and the Baywatch Babe -- both were younger than Cam, and considerably more attractive from a physical perspective than your otherwise-on-her-way-to-being-an-old-maid sister -- the only logical conclusion is that Cam married her for her money, and she married Cam because she wasn't going to get another offer any time soon.
These are your rules we are using, shallow as they are.
Why can't you just admit that you don't have the first freakin' clue about love and romance, not having been there before?
Another one for the archives:
Ted: Ken, BEHAVE! If it got poofed once, it will get poofed AGAIN. Drop the abuse, and it won't get poofed.
It never ceases to amaze me as to how all of your abusive ad hominem remarks are somehow appropriate, but my fair (but unflattering) comments constitute improper conduct. Different weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
Another one sure to die on the cutting-room floor at the KKK Blog:
anony: Shannon was fair for only a very short time at the beginning of the trial. Then she changed drastically - she went from reporting both sides to only telling the prosecutor's side and instead of taking notes during the testimony, she would sit down with the prosecutor's paralegal during the breaks and write furiously. All this began after a few days of testimony, but given that there was a week recess after two days of testimony (the Judge had a vacation) the change in her reporting “coincidentally” occurred at about the same time they started dating.
Given how "fair and balanced" this blog is, you scarcely have cause for complaint. Ted makes Shannon Farren seem like Walter Cronkite, by comparison. (Also, Ted makes Godzilla look like Megyn Kelly, by comparison....)
And another:
Ted: (And please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.)
Ken: Different weights and measures -- doesn't your LORD detest them both?
On sober second thought, to assume that your "LORD" is the LORD of the Bible is a manifestly unwarranted conclusion, Ted. One need look no further than your life and conduct to prove this fact beyond cavil.
Another candidate for censorship at the KKK Blog:
Ken: Ted makes Shannon Farren seem like Walter Cronkite, by comparison.
Ted: On the other hand, Ted is NOT a professional reporter.
No, Ted is just a compulsive liar, who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30423343&postID=9098557844332004069&isPopup=true
Ted: Moreover, in order for this comment to make sense, one must necessarily concede that Shannon's reporting is in some sense wanting.
Not necessarily. Walter Cronkite's work was several cuts above any of today's "reporters." FAUX News has obliterated the concept of objective news reporting, by hopelessly blurring fact and opinion and turning the network news department into a profit center. Competent reporters like Greg Palast and Sy Hersh are a dying breed.
Compared to this travesty of a blog, FAUX News constitutes professional reporting.
Another post certain to be censored:
Ted: Ken, you're incorrigible.
Why should I be "corrected," when I am right and we both know it?
It wasn't me who had to replace this photo ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg ) with a Photo-shopped shot of a baby giving people the finger because everyone kept commenting on how b*tt-f*ck*n'-UGLY (*st*r*sks used to deceive your Bugblatter-class god) you were.
If Patty and you have the same father (as you are fraternal twins, that need not be the case), there will be a familial resemblance. Genetics 101. As such, in light of that photo and Shannon Farren's observation that Patty was "a large woman" who was as slovenly as you appear in that photo and who sported dishwater-gray hair (an observation seconded by courtroom observers), a photo of you with shoulder-length dishwater-gray hair would be a fair first approximation.
Under your rules (well, Prager's), both Patty and Cam were scraping the absolute bottom of the marital "barrel," as Cam didn't have two nickels to rub together and couldn't reasonably be expected to in the near future, and Patty was an otherwise-soon-to-be-old-maid who was nearly ten years older than him and, in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, exceedingly deficient in the physical attractiveness department. Under the Kaldis/Prager paradigm, both Cam and Patty were galaxy-class losers.
The physical attractiveness and comparative youth of Sarah and the Baywatch Babe suggests that Cam could "do better," under the Kaldis/Prager paradigm. The logical inference is that he married Patty for her exchequer -- money being something that, apparently, neither Sarah nor the Baywatch Babe had in over-abundance.
Unless Patty is so homely that she could stop trains with her looks, you'd expect to find a photo of her on "Cam's personal blog." You haven't been married (or, to the best of my knowledge, even close to being in love) and wouldn't know this, but those who have been tend to be rather surprised at this omission.
What I have suggested is that (a) you debunk this reasonable and logical series of inferences by adding a wedding photo to Cam's blog, or (b) simply admit that you and Prager don't have the first clue about affairs of the heart (Prager going on his third marriage, and exclusively marrying within the Jewish community, so that even if he is correct when referring to that community, the general rule may not apply).
For something to properly be "corrected," there must be a compelling reason to correct it. Uh, you have the floor, Ted.
More in the censorship wars at the KKK Blog:
Ken (as censored by Ted): No, Ted is just a [censored], who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at [censored]
Be it in China or California, the mark of the censor is an open confession of one's lack of faith in the coherence and persuasiveness of one's own arguments. The Massachusetts Bay Colony had to banish Roger Williams for his opinions because the elders couldn't refute them; it's not like words like "compulsive liar" (when specifically referring to Ted, and Ted alone) and websites like this ( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30423343&postID=9098557844332004069&page=1&isPopup=true ) setting forth the evidence for those claims are pornographic....
You can't win in a free, fair, and unfettered debate, and you know it. Not that it matters, given your staggering lack of Internet sophistication....
Sure, you can keep the ugly truth off of this blog, but no one but members of the Kaldis clan (who already know that it is there from word-of-mouth) can even find it: do a Google search for "cameron brown murder trial," and the first hits you get are blogs by Loretta and her friends. From someone who claims to be so 'Net-savvy, one wonders how a mistake so bizarre and blindingly stupid could even be made. Think about it: If anyone who read Denise Nix's last article wanted to hear your side of the story, how would they ever find you? Adding that to the truly amateurish "Free Cam Brown" website -- which wasn't even cutting-edge in 1994 -- and one has to wonder why you even bother.
Moreover, if you insist upon being propagandists, who are not about to let the whole truth be known on this blog, you have no cause to complain about the proverbial snow on your neighbor's roof. Your own doorstep is unclean.
More grist for the KKK Blog mill:
Ken (as censored by Ted): No, Ted is just a [censored], who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at [censored]
(Quote from a diary entry at Daily Kos): Markos at Daily Kos has likewise, repeatedly illustrated cases where it is the traditional media, and not the bloggers, who act amorally. In reality, blogs have some rather well established ethical standards in practice, including the ethical standrads of (1) disclosing sources through hyperlinks, (2) not suppressing meritorious comments that disagree with the author, (3) rallying around efforts of interested parties to suppress blog reporting, and (4) not accepting uncritically false or misleading statements of fact made by interested parties as mere opinions.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/15/599213/-Blame-The-Bloggers
That even Daily Kos would have a higher ethical standard than you surprises me not in the least, Ted.
More in the series:
Ted: [Ken's pointless abusive blather elided ...]
Why don't you let your readers decide whether it is "pointless abusive blather" or not? Are you so afraid that they will disagree that you can't take that chance?
They can find the uncensored post at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30423343&postID=9098557844332004069&isPopup=true , and make up their own mind. I reiterate:
Be it in China or California, the mark of the censor is an open confession of one's lack of faith in the coherence and persuasiveness of one's own arguments. The Massachusetts Bay Colony had to banish Roger Williams for his opinions because the elders couldn't refute them; it's not like words like "compulsive liar" (when specifically referring to Ted, and Ted alone) and websites like this ( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g...=1& isPopup=true ) setting forth the evidence for those claims are pornographic....
You can't even try to refute me without looking the consummate fool, and we both know it.
Ted: You ain't right.
Why? Because Ted's god said so while he was passing a difficult stool on the throne? Argue the point, if you can (we know that you can't).
Ted: The Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was on to you.
Ted: [Ken's pointless abusive blather elided ...]
It's amazing how Ted's pointless abusive blather and ad hominem arguments are never elided....
Ken: Competent reporters like Greg Palast and Sy Hersh are a dying breed.
Ted: Psuh. Get real. (Or maybe that's a little too much to ask from you.)
Reporters will tell you themselves (KnowYourCOurts is a regular source of story leads) that their craft has suffered greatly, mostly due to the fact that they don't have resources sufficient to follow their leads. Who has the resources to do another Juice v. Justice? Not the Times (the reporters said so). Certainly, not the Boston Globe. Legal reporting in particular has devolved into punditry, as the few reporters who possess the requisite training to understand the evidence are mere commentators. Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
I never know what's going to fall victim to the censor's knife over at the Kook Kaldis Klan blog:
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
Ted: In Ken Smith's world, receiving statements from an apparently unscrupulous prosecutor, and then reprinting those statements verbatim -- without even bothering to try to get a statement from the other side, constitutes "pretty good" reporting.
Compared to what I have seen -- and let's not forget the consistently dishonest editorial policy of this blog, which pretends to be a news source, albeit tragically amateurish -- it is exemplary. This kind of press conference is timed with reporters' deadlines in mind; the statement of a prosecutor with respect to a potentially high-profile case is "news," in and of itself. It is rare that the reporter has enough time to contact the other side before going to press; the average reader knows that a prosecutor's prattlings are not the final word.
As for the "unscrupulous" prosecutor, in the delusional, electric-beer-enhanced world of Theodore A. Kaldis, everybody this side of Vladimir Putin is a part of the conspiracy that Theodore refuses to call a conspiracy. Think back to Darden and Clark. I haven't seen any unusual fouls -- lawyers for the government "cross the line" every day, knowing that nothing will ever come of it -- committed by Hum. The practice of law has coarsened in the past thirty years; what is now "normal" would never have been countenanced back then. It is wrong by my metric, but I have a higher standard than "whatever you can get away with." By stark contrast, you are amoral (also, read "slimy") enough to fit in nicely.
As has been said, Ted, you are known to consistently ignore even judicially noticeable facts and incorrigible inferences from hide-bound SCOTUS precedent when it serves your selfish purposes; you can hardly have cause for complaint if Craig Hum should decide to behave like a Kaldis.
Denise Nix has done her job, at a level easily exceeding that of our local yokels. No, this isn't Greta sans Substance on Caylee, Natalee, JonBenet, Chandra, or [substitute pretty white girl here], but she doesn't have Greta's resources or legal training at her disposal. Speaking of which, if Hum's actions in this prosecution are nearly as outlandish as you claim, why isn't Greta all over this case, Ted? It's not like it wouldn't be pillow talk....
and....
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
anony: Not if you care about some modicum of accuracy!!
First and foremost, you don't know how atrocious legal reporting is, on average. Second, as Ted is consistently delusional -- he won't even accept judicially noticeable facts that don't go his way -- and you have an awful lot of 'skin in the game' (after all, unless I miss my guess, we are talking about your husband here), you will understand if I don't regard your evaluation of Denise's work as entirely objective.
There is a vast gulf between "reporting" (basically, "he said X; she said not X") and "investigative reporting" (trying to figure out what X is), as evidenced by the missing jail library. Virtually every prison has a library, because it has to have one as a matter of law; constitutionally, prisoners cannot be deprived of the right of access to legal texts. That includes Supermax here in Florence, as was evidenced by white supremacist Matthew Hale's recent litigation here in the District of Colorado.
Based on that fact alone -- if the Hotel California didn't have a library, it would be more of a story than you think -- Denise Nix is justified in not having a particularly high degree of skepticism when L.A.S.D. officials claimed that Cam had a hardcover book in his room. As a reporter is interested in the "he said, she said" aspects of a story, getting that "fact" wrong (if the fact of the existence of a prison library is wrong, which would honestly astound me; you will understand my healthy skepticism, as it relates to your claim) is hardly unremarkable or necessarily a failure of care on her part.
What I find problematic is where reporters only talk to one side in a controversy when they have reasonable access, as evidenced by recent reporting on Mark Brennan's case before our state's disciplinary board. In one instance, Christianity Today simply made up a "quote" from me without even bothering to talk with me (and you wonder why I have grown to despise evangelical Christians?) That is bad reporting. Denise is largely hamstrung when writing about incidents like the shiv, because defense attorneys shouldn't say anything and defendants in criminal cases should say less.
They've given Denise the time to do the job; iirc, by contrast, the Times guy showed up for one day, and the AP pool reporter didn't show at all. Her pieces have been succinct and for the most part accurate; remember that in the traditional print media, brevity is next to godliness. Unless we are talking about Michael Jackson, expecting more is a very big "ask" these days.
Now, let's compare her work with the editorial policy of this blog (which is an attempt at reporting the news, however amateurish). Actively censoring dissenting views on the basis of content? He who lives in a glass house should not be in the habit of throwing stones....
and....
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
Ted: In Ken Smith's world
When we do a legal story at KnowYourCOurts.com, we do it right. We include documents filed with the court, so that anyone can check our work. Philosophically, we believe in letting the reader make up his or her own mind. But as a practical matter, that kind of documentation just isn't going to be found on a regular basis in the traditional media. If this were Michael Jackson, it would be different....
We honestly wish we could get better work out of the Fourth Estate, and do everything we can to facilitate their building on our work. The problem we face is grave -- to the point of threatening the very fabric of our Republic -- and doesn't begin or end with Cam Brown. You have a severe case of tunnel-vision (and are incorrigibly selfish), Ted. Get your fat head out (okay, it may be stuck) and see the bigger picture....
You know that this one won't last:
Ted: Ken, in my estimation, you are a veritable WHACK-JOB!
Another ad hominem ... watta shock! Ted, in my estimation -- one which is shared by virtually everyone on USENET who has had the singular misfortune of having encountered you -- you are a certifiable sociopath and incorrigible hypocrite.
Ted: You write with effusive praise about accounts the substance of which you have NO first-hand knowledge about.
First and foremost, my judgment is based, in no small part, on the claims you have made, both here and on USENET. Second, that alleged disability has not prevented you from libeling me for the past decade. Differing weights and measures -- whereas the god of the Bible detests them both, you and your god swear by them. Third, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Ted: And you pretend to speak authoritatively about the subject of these accounts, while at the same time acknowledging that their writers don't have the time or resources to cover their subject matter comprehensively.
Based primarily on your hysterical complaints, other reports, and documentation you and others have provided, and in light of my own rather extensive experience in dealing with reporters in the MSM, I can fairly judge the performance of Denise Nix. Denise has done a remarkably good job under the circumstances, when compared to the work of her colleagues. By stark contrast, you are fundamentally incapable of judging her fairly. You wouldn't be satisfied with anything short of a reporter serving as a mouthpiece for the paranoid conspiracy theories that even you shy away from when challenged, and displaying unbridled umbrage at ticky-tack procedural fouls that occur in every courtroom in Los Angeles on a daily basis. In short, you are not satisfied with anyone who doesn't see the world through your electric-beer-fogged rose-colored glasses.
The fundamental problem -- one which has been proven over and over and over again -- is that you are a compulsive liar. Even Geragoesthemoney has zero tolerance for your pathological and persistent insanity, as evidenced by his failure to file a habeas action in federal court.
Ted: Consequently, we can come to no other conclusion than that you are a mendacious prevaricator.
By the standard you use to judge me, Cam would have been found hanging from a noose four or five years ago.
Ted: Moreover, here is how someone might respond to my comments about your blatherings: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ka...dis/ Comment.mp3
How the rational person would respond to your comments about my reasoned arguments -- including the ones you dishonestly censor on the facile ground that you don't like their content and cannot respond rationally: "ROTFLMAO!!!!!"
Ted: Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, as the case may be), I don't have time to waste on responding to the BOLLOCKS that you post.
What colossally self-serving bovine excrement! You can let the statements stand without response. If you're really short on time, you can even forego the dishonest editing.
Ted: Now STFU and GTFOOH.
The audio you are looking for is at http://www.ez-tracks.com/getsong-songid-1269.html 8)
Ted won't like this one:
One more thing, Ted: Just remember that yours is a relatively remote corner of cyberspace, that most people couldn't find on a bet. Other blogs are more easily found. You don't have censorship power over the Daily Breeze site and especially, John and Ken. You are going to have to come to grips with rational critiques of your irrational and tendentious views.
Sure, you can censor here ... but what does that say about your confidence in your arguments, Chairman Cow?
Thanks for keeping us posted on events in the udder blog, but we have a new entry for fresh comments:
http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com/2009/07/jury-selection-began-yesterday-geragos.html
We are watching this as closely as we can from afar!
I'll just use this one to preserve poofed posts, like this one is sure to be:
Ted: All they need do is look at your interaction with the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, and then look at your MANY legal actions (and their result) in response to that interaction. (Links furnished upon request.)
Ken: To judge my conduct fairly, one must have what you do not possess: (1) a grounding in the law sufficient to understand the issues being raised,
Ted: I would submit that Judge Edward Nottingham, Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless, the jurists of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and of the Colorado Supreme Court DO indeed have such a background.
Are you really that blindingly stupid, Ted? Every time you open your proverbial pie-hole, you compel me to revise my estimate of your intelligence downward.
Remember: Judges have 'skin in the game'. As Frederick Douglass put it:
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
What I am doing is the functional equivalent of the Iranian people, protesting in the street because their votes were not counted and the "election" was rigged. While "the law" is not always scrupulously objective -- certain statutes can be interpreted several ways, and there are gradations -- when a judge places his or her hands on the scales of justice for impure ends, it is usually obvious. By way of example, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), SCOTUS made the following salient observations:[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has "a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest" in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that "[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would cer tainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, cor rupt his integrity." …
On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitu tional level. …
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Consti tution requires recusal.Caperton, slip op. at 6, 16 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
post continued:
It is difficult to imagine any fact situation any more extraordinary or extreme than a judge deciding an appeal in a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, at least sixteen non-conflicted judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal is required by statute to be heard by another court: the judicially noticeable facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055). Taken together, the rule of law precipitated from these cases is that, if you have enough money to afford the services of former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a state judge must recuse where "the prob ability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level," Caperton, slip op. at 16 … but if you are a man of modest means, forced to approach our courts in propria persona out of practical necessity, the Due Process Clause will not even afford you the barest protection of "the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has ‘a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest’ in a case." Id., slip op. at 6 (citation omitted).
Now, think about that for even half a minute. Any “rule of law” which depends in material part on one’s station in life (or, who you know) is not deserving of the appellation. (It's that promise of "equal justice under law" etched onto the frieze of the Supreme Court building.) The only rational (the concept of "rationality" is utterly foreign to you) conclusion is that the Supreme Court's rule is the right one (fwiw, there are about forty cases saying the same thing), and that the lower courts in question have ignored the Court's dictates.
Everyone who doesn't have skin in the game -- your personal vendetta against me, precipitated by our religious differences, blinds you to reason -- is going to look at the spectacle of Smith v. Mullarkey and admit that it is an appalling abuse of the judicial power. You, on the other hand, having lost so many arguments to me that we have both lost count, would rather cut your nuts off (as you will recall, you have said something to that effect) than have to admit that you have lost again. And that brings us to the subject of ethics, or more accurately, your complete lack thereof [to be continued presently].
As it is Sunday, and that big, fat hippo-crite shows no sign of repentance, it is apropos that he be reminded that in the Old Testament, the god of the Bible (NOT the one Ted worships, which is a soulless creature of his own devising) warned his people of the consequences of hard-heartedness: "He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished." (Proverbs 17:5 NIV)
Could the fate of Cameron Brown be Ted's punishment for his gloating?
You really need to stop having auto-erotic relations with your Bible and start reading it on occasion, Ted.
Ted: Moreover, in your case, this doesn't even come into play. The state has a compelling interest in making sure that those who are allowed to practise law are psychologically fit to do so.
But doesn't the accused have rights? Don't the agents of the government have to follow the law? Or is this just another case of Kaldis Rules™, where there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception?"
Ted: I don't want obstinate WHACK-JOBS who are unable to admit defeat becoming lawyers, and pushing losing cases FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing.
Are Judge Arnold and Judge Pastor free to disregard the hide-bound precedent of the United States Supreme Court in managing their courtrooms and rendering their verdicts? You squealed like the stuck pig (well, more like a walrus -- a pig would have a coronary if he had as much body fat as you) you are when Judge Arnold laughed at Geragos' ridiculous 995 motion. Why is there ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law" exception in Kaldis Rules™?
Listen to your own people whine: "Judge Arnold was so manifestly unfair to Cam (for instance, the trial transcript is full dialogue were Judge Arnold stated that he felt all kinds of laws do not apply to this case)." It is one thing to lose fair and square, but quite another to lose in a court where the judge employs the Bill of Rights as a makeshift tampon, and discovers her decision in her nether regions, contained in a five-year old, syphilis-encrusted tampon.
So what if Judge Arnold was unfair? "It's not a good idea to step in front of a barrelling 18-wheeler even if pedestrians lawfully have the right of way." Cam stepped into it, and under your rules, he deserves to get run over. And so what if the LASD blackmails Judge Pastor with a moral turpitude charge? You have to respect power, get on your knees, and expose your sphincter. PREACH IT, BROTHER TED!!! If you are going to get raped anyway, you might as well lie back and enjoy it ... right, Coach Knight?
And don't forget that other set of obstinate WHACK-JOBS who were unable to admit defeat, and who pushed a losing cause FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing. We call them our Founding Fathers.
And then, there is the consummate obstinate WHACK-JOB, who was unable to admit defeat and pushed a hopeless cause FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing. Remember William Wilberforce?
There have been so many times where I have seen kids who would have been better off if their mothers had just not involved the father (this is not a slam on fathers, my husband is a great one and totally vital to our kids) when the father is a sociopath, or when he takes custody more and more so that his child support can be less and less. Not every woman should be a mother and not every man a father. When I left my first abusive husband and moved 1/2 a state away, if for some reason I would have found out I was pregnant I would never have told him, because I believe he would have abused that child like he abused me. This poor mom was just trying to do the right thing, and he ruined her life. I hope he gets the death penalty.
This year would have been Lauren's 13th birthday.
God bless you sis<3
thinking of you... sometimes i wonder what youd be like today... Your in Gods hands now.. keep watching over us...love you sis.
I love you so much!! It seems like just yesterday that we were dancing around the living room putting on shows for our moms and playing with dolls under the dining room table. I love you more than anyone could ever imagine, and miss you so much! Life isn't that same without my closest cousin, and my best friend. You'll forever be in my heart. Being almost 18 and almost graduated doesn't seem possible without you by my side!! You would've been 15 today, beautiful!
R.I.P. Lala. Today I looked up at the sky and realized how beautiful it is, and I remembered it's because you're up there.
Post a Comment