Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeat
or otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealt
with some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most people
just cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls under
the category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgements
and so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucrat
decides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denying
you actions that are available to others, etc.
Merlin
10-06-2003, 09:02 PM
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:
Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealtwith some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most peoplejust cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls underthe category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgementsand so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucratdecides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denyingyou actions that are available to others, etc.
What! You want to sue our government?
No doubt they discuss such things in a law book somewhere.
But it just seems so... well, unpatriotic or something.
Are you sure you should be allowed to do that?
-Merlin
Alex Parshikov
10-06-2003, 09:11 PM
In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org
(Merlin) wrote:
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealtwith some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most peoplejust cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls underthe category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgementsand so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a
bureaucratdecides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denyingyou actions that are available to others, etc. What! You want to sue our government? No doubt they discuss such things in a law book somewhere. But it just seems so... well, unpatriotic or something. Are you sure you should be allowed to do that? -Merlin
For starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew, Merlin :)
)
On 6 Oct 2003 23:27:28 -0000,
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:
Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealtwith some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most peoplejust cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls underthe category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgementsand so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucratdecides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denyingyou actions that are available to others, etc.
You are asking how the judicial functions of the government can be
used against its executive functions. That's not a direct answer to
your question, but it may cause you to refine your thinking.
- Jon Beaver
Theodore A. Kaldis
10-07-2003, 07:29 AM
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:
Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeat or otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealt with some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most people just cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls under the category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgements and so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucrat decides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denying you actions that are available to others, etc.
Lyndon Johnson used to say, "Don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk."
I suggest you heed his advice (though your post indicates that it might be
too late for that).
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Dan Evans
10-07-2003, 09:36 AM
On 6 Oct 2003 23:27:28 -0000,
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:
Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies.
Procedures to "cause problems" for state agencies are also known as
"harrassment," and can lead to fines and other kinds of legal
sanctions.
If you believe that a state agency has made an error of fact or law,
there is usually a remedy, but the remedy will vary from state to
state, and possibly also from agency to agency.
In Pennsylvania, there is a general statute that any person
"aggrieved" by an action of a state agency may appeal to the
Commonwealth Court, and it shouldn't be too difficult to research the
rules of procedure for the Commonwealth Court, as well as the rules of
law that govern under what circumstances the court will reverse an
action of a state agency.
You will probably find it easier to appeal an error of law than an
error of fact. By an "error of law" I mean that, if you can show that
you should have won under the agency's version of the facts (or under
the undisputed facts), then the dispute is over the application of the
law and not over the facts.
If there is a dispute about the facts, you should pay particular
attention to the standards for appeal. For example, if the court will
reverse a factual finding only for an "abuse of discretion," then you
are probably going to lose, because it is very difficult to
demonstrate an abuse of discretion. However, if the court will
reverse if the fact-finding of the agency is "against the weight of
the evidence," then you have a greater chance of success.
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
Henry
10-07-2003, 10:44 AM
Hoist _with_, not 'on'.
_Hamlet_, III, iv, 207.
And if you _really_ want to wow them on the cocktail-party circuit, it's
actually 'petar', according to Kittredge (the greatest expert).
cheers,
Henry
Merlin
10-07-2003, 11:37 AM
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:
In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org(Merlin) wrote:Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealtwith some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most peoplejust cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls underthe category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgementsand so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which abureaucratdecides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denyingyou actions that are available to others, etc. What! You want to sue our government? No doubt they discuss such things in a law book somewhere. But it just seems so... well, unpatriotic or something. Are you sure you should be allowed to do that? -MerlinFor starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew, Merlin :))<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/>
Thanks, Rightly cited. The OP is in for some big fun now!
(I knew they had discussed such things somewhere besides
Ex parte Young. hey! :)
Still, while no one likes evil state agencies or lying bureaucrats
I was just a might curious whether the OP had thought about
whether, notwithstanding the eleventh amendment, it would
even be a sensible idea to allow people to use our courts to
"cause trouble" for the government every time a "bureaucrat
decides to lie".
In other words, perhaps the OP's understanding of "how"
would be better advanced by asking the OP to consider matters
in the context of "why"?
-Merlin
Ken Smith
10-07-2003, 05:04 PM
Dan Evans wrote:
On 6 Oct 2003 23:27:28 -0000, Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Procedures to "cause problems" for state agencies are also known as "harrassment," and can lead to fines and other kinds of legal sanctions.
Presuming, of course, that there is no underlying merit in the claim
being advanced. That having been said, do you really think it proper,
PT, to engage in the same kind of misconduct you accuse others of?
If you believe that a state agency has made an error of fact or law, there is usually a remedy, but the remedy will vary from state to state, and possibly also from agency to agency.
If a government official has improperly injured you, then you should
have some kind of remedy. To hold otherwise would make a mockery
of our legal system (if at this point, that is even possible!).
In Pennsylvania, there is a general statute that any person "aggrieved" by an action of a state agency may appeal to the Commonwealth Court, and it shouldn't be too difficult to research the rules of procedure for the Commonwealth Court, as well as the rules of law that govern under what circumstances the court will reverse an action of a state agency. You will probably find it easier to appeal an error of law than an error of fact. By an "error of law" I mean that, if you can show that you should have won under the agency's version of the facts (or under the undisputed facts), then the dispute is over the application of the law and not over the facts.
Dan's given a good, solid, balanced, informative answer -- something
you won't often get from the Beaver Boyz. The problem you are likely
to run into is that your mileage may vary depending on the facts and the
state you live in, and statutes of limitation can be severe. If you have a
specific complaint, your best bet is to consult an attorney in your state
(unless, of course, you live in California -- in which case, you would be
well advised to consult with any attorney other than the Beaver).
If you just want a basic conceptual background, start reading some of
the cases applying 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (the most-used provision of the
Civil Rights Act).
If there is a dispute about the facts, you should pay particular attention to the standards for appeal. For example, if the court will reverse a factual finding only for an "abuse of discretion," then you are probably going to lose, because it is very difficult to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. However, if the court will reverse if the fact-finding of the agency is "against the weight of the evidence," then you have a greater chance of success.
Colorado has something similar: Art. II, Sec. 6 of the state's constitution
empowers an aggrieved party to sue a state government agency under the
aforementioned set of facts. Problem is, under Colorado's weird reading
of that law, you have to show that you have no other remedy before you
can avail yourself of it....
Ken Smith
10-07-2003, 05:04 PM
Merlin wrote:
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org(Merlin) wrote:Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:>Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeat>or otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealt>with some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most people>just cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls under>the category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgements>and so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucrat>decides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denying>you actions that are available to others, etc. What! You want to sue our government? No doubt they discuss such things in a law book somewhere. But it just seems so... well, unpatriotic or something. Are you sure you should be allowed to do that? -MerlinFor starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew, Merlin :))<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/> Thanks, Rightly cited. The OP is in for some big fun now!
While you two are busy congratulating yourselves on your combined
"how in the hell did you pass the Bar, anyway?" knowledge of the law
in this area, you seem to forget that it is not the state, but state officials,
who are the actual tortfeasors in this arena. If you want state officials
to do their job, you sue the state; if you prefer to punish them for their
misconduct in the business end, you sue them personally.
If you can't even try to educate the inquirer, you'd be better off going
back to your fantasy baseball camps. The Mets are out, but the Cubs
and Red Sox are in -- as sure a sign of the Apocalypse as anyone can
contemplate.... :)
Ken Smith
10-07-2003, 05:04 PM
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote: Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeat or otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealt with some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most people just cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls under the category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgements and so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucrat decides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denying you actions that are available to others, etc. Lyndon Johnson used to say, "Don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk." I suggest you heed his advice (though your post indicates that it might be too late for that).
Ted lives in a Bolshevik world, where government corruption is inevitable
and even desirable. He is, not incidentally, a rabid George Bush supporter.
Ken Smith
10-07-2003, 05:04 PM
Jon Beaver wrote:
On 6 Oct 2003 23:27:28 -0000, Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealtwith some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most peoplejust cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls underthe category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgementsand so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucratdecides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denyingyou actions that are available to others, etc. You are asking how the judicial functions of the government can be used against its executive functions. That's not a direct answer to your question, but it may cause you to refine your thinking.
He's just asking about how us ordinary citizens can fight bureaucratic
sloth, indolence, and/or willful misconduct. It's not a fuzzy question at
all but rather, a generic request for a range of ideas as to how to attack
the problem.
If you don't have any constructive suggestions, then perhaps you can
regale us with tales of how you bribe local public officials....
Alex Parshikov
10-07-2003, 06:39 PM
In article <3F8355BF.5FB9D159@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Merlin wrote: none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.orgFor starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew,
Merlin :))<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/> Thanks, Rightly cited. The OP is in for some big fun now! While you two are busy congratulating yourselves on your combined"how in the hell did you pass the Bar, anyway?" knowledge of the lawin this area, you seem to forget that it is not the state, but state officials,who are the actual tortfeasors in this arena. If you want state officialsto do their job, you sue the state; if you prefer to punish them for theirmisconduct in the business end, you sue them personally.
Umm, Kenny, read Ex Parte Young. A suit against a state official will
affect state revenues (i.e. you're seeking damages) then it will be
treated as a suit against the sovereign state, even if the state officials
are personally named as defendants. Unless you can show they somehow
acted outside of the scope of their authority.
Alex Parshikov
10-07-2003, 06:40 PM
In article <3F8355B0.E029E42B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: If you just want a basic conceptual background, start reading some ofthe cases applying 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (the most-used provision of theCivil Rights Act).
You think this is the most used provision of the Civil Rights Act?
Merlin
10-07-2003, 11:08 PM
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:
In article <3F8355BF.5FB9D159@concentric.net>, Ken Smith<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Merlin wrote: none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote: >In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org > >For starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew,Merlin :)) > ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/> Thanks, Rightly cited. The OP is in for some big fun now! While you two are busy congratulating yourselves on your combined"how in the hell did you pass the Bar, anyway?" knowledge of the lawin this area, you seem to forget that it is not the state, but state officials,who are the actual tortfeasors in this arena. If you want state officialsto do their job, you sue the state; if you prefer to punish them for theirmisconduct in the business end, you sue them personally.Umm, Kenny, read Ex Parte Young. A suit against a state official willaffect state revenues (i.e. you're seeking damages) then it will betreated as a suit against the sovereign state, even if the state officialsare personally named as defendants. Unless you can show they somehowacted outside of the scope of their authority.
Isn't this the same Kenny Smith who brought a 1983 case against
the Co Supreme Court, personally, in the 10th Circuit?
That's not a suit you'd want to screw up on, huh?
I wonder how he did?
Hey Kenny... after reading Ex Parte Young, maybe you
should go back and review the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
You never know when a little scrap of knowledge might
save you from smushing full tilt into that brick wall.. ya think?
-Merlin
Jon Beaver
10-08-2003, 05:09 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:04:39 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On 6 Oct 2003 23:27:28 -0000, Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeator otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealtwith some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most peoplejust cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls underthe category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgementsand so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucratdecides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denyingyou actions that are available to others, etc. You are asking how the judicial functions of the government can be used against its executive functions. That's not a direct answer to your question, but it may cause you to refine your thinking. He's just asking about how us ordinary citizens can fight bureaucraticsloth, indolence, and/or willful misconduct. It's not a fuzzy question atall but rather, a generic request for a range of ideas as to how to attackthe problem.
Unfortunately, he didn't identify a "problem." Until he does, we
don't know whether it's a mere figment of his faulty perception,
whether it's remediable through the courts, or whether he has standing
to complain. But more fundamentally, if the question is whether there
is, or ought to be, any legitimate mechanism to "sue, defeat or
otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies" that does not FIRST
involve a mechanism for determining WHETHER they are "evil," to be
decided by someone other than the person "causing the problems," the
answer is NO.
Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who make
decisions they are required to make are doing their job, even if it's
a "wrong" decision. The remedy for "wrong" decisions is political,
for the ballot box, not the courts. The exceptions for
constitutionally guaranteed personal rights shouldn't make us forget
this.
- Jon Beaver
Theodore A. Kaldis
10-08-2003, 07:25 AM
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Lyndon Johnson used to say, "Don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk." I suggest you heed his advice (though your post indicates that it might be too late for that).
Ted lives in a Bolshevik world, where government corruption is inevitable and even desirable. He is, not incidentally, a rabid George Bush supporter.
Not "rabid". I disagree with a number of his actions. But the fact that Ken
Smith associates "corruption" with George Bush tells us much about Ken.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Theodore A. Kaldis
10-08-2003, 07:32 AM
Jon Beaver wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[Some bollocks, most likely.]
Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who make decisions they are required to make
Such as, say, requiring a bar applicant to submit to a psychological
examination?
are doing their job, even if it's a "wrong" decision.
And I can think of one case where such a decision wasn't "wrong".
The remedy for "wrong" decisions is political, for the ballot box, not the courts. The exceptions for constitutionally guaranteed personal rights shouldn't make us forget this.
But in Ken's case, it appears that he might have the misbegotten notion that
he somehow has a RIGHT to practise law.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Dan Evans
10-08-2003, 11:27 AM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 05:09:17 -0700, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who makedecisions they are required to make are doing their job, even if it'sa "wrong" decision. The remedy for "wrong" decisions is political,for the ballot box, not the courts.
As the Supreme Court once pointed out, "It is not a tort to govern."
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
Guest
10-08-2003, 02:03 PM
Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlin
for pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Now
if I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that would
be a major victory.
If someone would entertain a followup? Are there some states where it's easier
to sue than others? Mention was made of Penn. which has a law that allows this.
Does any of this depend to any degree on what Federal Circuit the state is
in?
Merlin
10-08-2003, 04:28 PM
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:
Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlinfor pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Nowif I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that wouldbe a major victory.If someone would entertain a followup? Are there some states where it's easierto sue than others? Mention was made of Penn. which has a law that allows this.Does any of this depend to any degree on what Federal Circuit the state isin?
It was Larry who cited the eleventh amendment, but he's a public
servant getting used to others taking credit for his work, so yer
welcome, troublemaker.
As for suing, your starting place is a lawyer, seriously, but as for
location you'll find that you can sue with equal facility in all
fifty US States.... except maybe its easier in Colorado where
they have one less lawyer clogging the courts than in other
places.... yet remember that your likelyhood of winning is
somewhat improved relative to the likelyhood of getting
yourself into a lot of trouble, in jurisdictions where you
actually have a viable case. So keep that in mind when
you talk to that lawyer. Good luck!
-Merlin
Jon Beaver
10-08-2003, 05:45 PM
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:28:21 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlinfor pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Nowif I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that wouldbe a major victory.If someone would entertain a followup? Are there some states where it's easierto sue than others? Mention was made of Penn. which has a law that allows this.Does any of this depend to any degree on what Federal Circuit the state isin? It was Larry who cited the eleventh amendment, but he's a public servant getting used to others taking credit for his work, so yer welcome, troublemaker. As for suing, your starting place is a lawyer, seriously, but as for location you'll find that you can sue with equal facility in all fifty US States.... except maybe its easier in Colorado where they have one less lawyer clogging the courts than in other places.... yet remember that your likelyhood of winning is somewhat improved relative to the likelyhood of getting yourself into a lot of trouble, in jurisdictions where you actually have a viable case. So keep that in mind when you talk to that lawyer. Good luck!
Remember also that suing someone for the purpose of causing them
"trouble" is the classic abuse of process.
- Jon Beaver
Ken Smith
10-08-2003, 09:53 PM
Larry wrote:
In article <3F8355B0.E029E42B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: If you just want a basic conceptual background, start reading some ofthe cases applying 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (the most-used provision of theCivil Rights Act). You think this is the most used provision of the Civil Rights Act?
And your nomination for #1 is?
Ken Smith
10-08-2003, 09:53 PM
Larry wrote:
In article <3F8355BF.5FB9D159@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Merlin wrote: none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote: >In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org > >For starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew, Merlin :)) > ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/> Thanks, Rightly cited. The OP is in for some big fun now! While you two are busy congratulating yourselves on your combined"how in the hell did you pass the Bar, anyway?" knowledge of the lawin this area, you seem to forget that it is not the state, but state officials,who are the actual tortfeasors in this arena. If you want state officialsto do their job, you sue the state; if you prefer to punish them for theirmisconduct in the business end, you sue them personally. Umm, Kenny, read Ex Parte Young. A suit against a state official will affect state revenues (i.e. you're seeking damages) then it will be treated as a suit against the sovereign state, even if the state officials are personally named as defendants. Unless you can show they somehow acted outside of the scope of their authority.
That is the issue, isn't it? If a government official is acting within the
scope of his authority and discretion, he isn't committing "misconduct,"
is he? "Misconduct in office" is defined by Black's as "Any unlawful
behavior by a public official in relation to the duties of his office, will-
ful in character. Term embraces acts which the office holder had no
right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the
face of an affirmative duty to act."
What part of that do you not understand, Cub Pwosseccuta?
Ken Smith
10-08-2003, 09:54 PM
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:04:39 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote: On 6 Oct 2003 23:27:28 -0000, Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote: >Anyone know of any legal treatises or books on how to successfully sue, defeat >or otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies. Most of us have dealt >with some pinhead bureaurat in the wrong at one time or another. Most people >just cave. I want to teach myself to fight them. I imagine this falls under >the category of exceptions to immunity, defeating corrupt summary judgements >and so on. Any tips appreciated. I am referring to instances in which a bureaucrat >decides to lie thereby sending you up a false road, discriminate by denying >you actions that are available to others, etc. You are asking how the judicial functions of the government can be used against its executive functions. That's not a direct answer to your question, but it may cause you to refine your thinking. He's just asking about how us ordinary citizens can fight bureaucraticsloth, indolence, and/or willful misconduct. It's not a fuzzy question atall but rather, a generic request for a range of ideas as to how to attackthe problem. Unfortunately, he didn't identify a "problem."
He shouldn't have to at this stage. If he understands how "the system"
is supposed to work, he can start thinking in terms of whether remedies
are available.
Until he does, we don't know whether it's a mere figment of his faulty perception, whether it's remediable through the courts, or whether he has standing to complain.
We shouldn't be the ones making that decision; I'd much prefer that he
consult a local attorney on that score. But he needs enough background
to even begin to ask the right questions.
But more fundamentally, if the question is whether there is, or ought to be, any legitimate mechanism to "sue, defeat or otherwise cause problems for evil state agencies" that does not FIRST involve a mechanism for determining WHETHER they are "evil," to be decided by someone other than the person "causing the problems," the answer is NO.
In most cases, the suit *IS* the mechanism for determining whether the
oficial exceeded his lawful authority. Would you prefer that the individual
be required to use deadly force to settle the matter?
Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who make decisions they are required to make are doing their job, even if it's a "wrong" decision.
As long as the government agent stays within the confines of his lawful
authority, and no remedies are provided under law, that ought to be the
end of the matter. That having been said, the federal and state constitu-
tions are absolute limits on that official's authority, as are federal or state
laws constraining his actions. Any person violating those strictures strays
beyond the bounds of his agency, and cannot be said to be acting under
law.
The remedy for "wrong" decisions is political, for the ballot box, not the courts.
But if the "wrong" decision only affects a single individual, resort to the
ballot box is not a viable option. Don't you think we should just settle it
in the Marine way -- blowing up the official and skragging his family? :)
The exceptions for constitutionally guaranteed personal rights shouldn't make us forget this.
I'll tell you what: Ensure that I have the right to vindicate my "constitu-
tionally guaranteed personal rights" in a federal court, and we'll talk --
unless and until I have the right to challenge the legality of a government
search before a independent and disinterested tribunal (one's superiors
just doesn't cut it!), I have no more constitutionally guaranteed personal
rights than the average Iraqi did under Saddam Hussein. Hell, I don't
even have a right to challenge the constitutionality of a statute affecting
me in federal court -- and you see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Merlin
10-08-2003, 10:30 PM
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:28:21 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlinfor pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Nowif I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that wouldbe a major victory.If someone would entertain a followup? Are there some states where it's easierto sue than others? Mention was made of Penn. which has a law that allows this.Does any of this depend to any degree on what Federal Circuit the state isin? It was Larry who cited the eleventh amendment, but he's a public servant getting used to others taking credit for his work, so yer welcome, troublemaker. As for suing, your starting place is a lawyer, seriously, but as for location you'll find that you can sue with equal facility in all fifty US States.... except maybe its easier in Colorado where they have one less lawyer clogging the courts than in other places.... yet remember that your likelyhood of winning is somewhat improved relative to the likelyhood of getting yourself into a lot of trouble, in jurisdictions where you actually have a viable case. So keep that in mind when you talk to that lawyer. Good luck!Remember also that suing someone for the purpose of causing them"trouble" is the classic abuse of process.- Jon Beaver
As our own Ken Smith discovered to his destruction.
But then, we expect real lawyers to know such things, right?
Which is one of the good reasons we direct folks looking to
cause "trouble" to a lawyer such as yourself.
See? Problem solved. :)
No need to thank me.
-Merlin
Jon Beaver
10-09-2003, 08:17 AM
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:53:24 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Larry wrote: In article <3F8355BF.5FB9D159@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Merlin wrote:> none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:> >In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org> >> >For starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew, Merlin :))> >> ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/>>> Thanks, Rightly cited. The OP is in for some big fun now! While you two are busy congratulating yourselves on your combined"how in the hell did you pass the Bar, anyway?" knowledge of the lawin this area, you seem to forget that it is not the state, but state officials,who are the actual tortfeasors in this arena. If you want state officialsto do their job, you sue the state; if you prefer to punish them for theirmisconduct in the business end, you sue them personally. Umm, Kenny, read Ex Parte Young. A suit against a state official will affect state revenues (i.e. you're seeking damages) then it will be treated as a suit against the sovereign state, even if the state officials are personally named as defendants. Unless you can show they somehow acted outside of the scope of their authority. That is the issue, isn't it? If a government official is acting within thescope of his authority and discretion, he isn't committing "misconduct,"is he?
Bad analysis. It begs the question. If immunity were only for acts
that are not "misconduct" what IS immunity? The whole concept of
immunity is about official, even though wrongful, acts. It's about not
making OUR government officials answerable privately to YOU for their
alleged "misconduct."
- Jon Beaver
Merlin
10-09-2003, 12:21 PM
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
Also, remember that, fundamentally, government officials who make decisions they are required to make are doing their job, even if it's a "wrong" decision. As long as the government agent stays within the confines of his lawfulauthority, and no remedies are provided under law, that ought to be theend of the matter. That having been said, the federal and state constitu-tions are absolute limits on that official's authority, as are federal or statelaws constraining his actions. Any person violating those strictures straysbeyond the bounds of his agency, and cannot be said to be acting underlaw.
Huh? Not "acting under law"? What are you babbling about?
Not every "wrong" decision is actionable at law, nor is every action
which violates a law. Yikes! Are you brain damaged too?
If you wield the battle-axe like it was a farm tool, you will be cut
down! (Which isn't any new experience for you, eh?)
So think again about what you need to do to accomplish your
objective, Ken.... better still, get some professional help,
rehabilitate yourself, go back and take your last year of
law school over (this time pay attention), study for and pass the
bar, apply for a law license and take and pass the moral fitness
requirement INCLUDING any required mental status exam, get an
official okiedokie from the Colorado Supremes for a law license,
take the requisite oath, THEN come back and we'll let you
pontificate about how " Any person violating those strictures
strays beyond the bounds of his agency, and cannot be said to
be acting under law.".... but frankly, I predict that by then you'll
have gotten a clue and will find such comments kinda
weird.
The remedy for "wrong" decisions is political, for the ballot box, not the courts. But if the "wrong" decision only affects a single individual, resort to theballot box is not a viable option. Don't you think we should just settle itin the Marine way -- blowing up the official and skragging his family? :)
No. Because the moment someone in authority can be convinced
you pose a serious threat of that kind you'll simply be locked up
instead of being allowed to roam around the internet unsuccessfully
pretending you aren't a lunatic. Okiedokie?
So think some more, but this time... think better.
Ken Smith
10-10-2003, 06:02 AM
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:53:24 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Larry wrote: In article <3F8355BF.5FB9D159@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: >Merlin wrote: >> none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote: >> >In article <3f823887.33715121@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, mag@camelot.org >> > >> >For starters, read the eleventh amdendment. (Which I assumed you knew, Merlin :)) >> > >> ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment11/> >> >> Thanks, Rightly cited. The OP is in for some big fun now! > > While you two are busy congratulating yourselves on your combined >"how in the hell did you pass the Bar, anyway?" knowledge of the law >in this area, you seem to forget that it is not the state, but state officials, >who are the actual tortfeasors in this arena. If you want state officials >to do their job, you sue the state; if you prefer to punish them for their >misconduct in the business end, you sue them personally. Umm, Kenny, read Ex Parte Young. A suit against a state official will affect state revenues (i.e. you're seeking damages) then it will be treated as a suit against the sovereign state, even if the state officials are personally named as defendants. Unless you can show they somehow acted outside of the scope of their authority. That is the issue, isn't it? If a government official is acting within thescope of his authority and discretion, he isn't committing "misconduct,"is he? Bad analysis. It begs the question. If immunity were only for acts that are not "misconduct" what IS immunity?
No, I'm simply cutting through a lot of bull**** that wouldn't need
to be stated when addressing competent attorneys.
The whole concept of immunity is about official, even though wrongful, acts.
Not at all. There are two subspecies of immunity, which necessarily
address vastly different problems. The first is qualified or "good faith"
immunity, which covers every governmental agent from judges to jani-
tors acting within the confines of their statutory authority. The other is
"absolute" or situational immunity, which protects government agents
from liability for even willful misconduct. At least with respect to the
immunity afforded judges, the latter is narrowly construed, and surely
does not extend to protection from liability for inadequate supervision
of subordinates (as alleged in my tort claim), if Forrester is any guide.
It's about not making OUR government officials answerable privately to YOU for their alleged "misconduct."
Give me a good reason why they shouldn't be, Jon.
If the government can disregard the law even to the point where our
portfolio of civil liberties can be irreparably damaged, what liberties do
we have left?
Theodore A. Kaldis
10-10-2003, 08:20 AM
Ken Smith wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
[...]
That is the issue, isn't it? If a government official is acting within the scope of his authority and discretion, he isn't committing "misconduct," is he?
So then, say, a bar examiner requiring a bar candidate to submit to a
psychological examination as part of the evaluation process cannot be
committing "misconduct".
Bad analysis.
As usual for Ken.
It begs the question. If immunity were only for acts that are not "misconduct" what IS immunity?
Lip service, to Ken.
No, I'm simply cutting through a lot of bull****
How can you be "cutting through" something which you produce in tandem
dumptruck-sized loads?
that wouldn't need to be stated when addressing competent attorneys.
You wouldn't recognise a competent attorney if one were to bite you on the
arse. Isn't this rather a fatuous statement to be coming from one who
challenges the competence of the Colorado Supreme Court, Federal District
Court, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Jon Beaver
10-10-2003, 09:10 AM
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:02:36 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
It's about not making OUR government officials answerable privately to YOU for their alleged "misconduct." Give me a good reason why they shouldn't be, Jon.
I'm just identifying the issue. If you want to argue the merits, call
your legislator. If you aren't intimately familiar with the
historical rationale for sovereign immunity, why are you trying to sue
the government without a lawyer?
If the government can disregard the law even to the point where ourportfolio of civil liberties can be irreparably damaged, what liberties dowe have left?
Arguing with your navel again?
- Jon Beaver
Theodore A. Kaldis
10-10-2003, 10:31 AM
Jon Beaver wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Jon Beaver wrote:
It's about not making OUR government officials answerable privately to YOU for their alleged "misconduct."
Give me a good reason why they shouldn't be, Jon.
I'm just identifying the issue. If you want to argue the merits, call your legislator. If you aren't intimately familiar with the historical rationale for sovereign immunity, why are you trying to sue the government without a lawyer?
Because he's Ken Smith, and Ken seems to be a solipsist at heart. There is
nothing but Ken Smith, and everything else -- including this physical
reality -- is just a figment of Ken's imagination.
(Hey, it's just as good an explanation as any other. Since when have Ken
Smith's actions ever made any sense?)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Ken Smith
10-10-2003, 05:25 PM
Merlin wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:28:21 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:>Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlin>for pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Now>if I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that would>be a major victory.>>If someone would entertain a followup? Are there some states where it's easier>to sue than others? Mention was made of Penn. which has a law that allows this.>Does any of this depend to any degree on what Federal Circuit the state is>in?>> It was Larry who cited the eleventh amendment, but he's a public servant getting used to others taking credit for his work, so yer welcome, troublemaker. As for suing, your starting place is a lawyer, seriously, but as for location you'll find that you can sue with equal facility in all fifty US States.... except maybe its easier in Colorado where they have one less lawyer clogging the courts than in other places.... yet remember that your likelyhood of winning is somewhat improved relative to the likelyhood of getting yourself into a lot of trouble, in jurisdictions where you actually have a viable case. So keep that in mind when you talk to that lawyer. Good luck!Remember also that suing someone for the purpose of causing them"trouble" is the classic abuse of process.- Jon Beaver As our own Ken Smith discovered to his destruction.
Uh, never mind that two courts of competent jurisdiction considered
said claim, and threw it out. Facts like that never get in the way of the
Boy Beaver's defamatory remarks....
But he sure hates being associated with JonBoy -- it's as if "Merlin's"
downright embarrassed. (OC, if I were forced to admit that I had the
same genes as our JonBoy, I'd be pretty embarrassed, as well....)
Merlin wrote: "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
Ken... these personal attacks against Jon and Larryare neither deserved or effective against them. They areonly effective against you.Oh, baloney. Neither of them have shown him the slightest courtesy andneither have you. And Larry is a puerile little prick with a mega-ego andonly a passable knowledge of law. He will never be a Clarence Darrow orLouis Nizer.
[snip]
Beaver undertook to criticize Ken's cause, and in an unlawyerlike, vulgarmanner too. I called him on his record, and he became evasive. It isrelevant that he has no significant experience pursuing appeals if heundertakes to rake Ken and Ken's causes over the coals.I don't see that any of the three of you have any honor, and you probablywould have sided against Zola and Dreyfus in the Dreyfus case. Alwayseasier (and safer) to go with the flow, you know. I saw no 'unlawyerlike' behaviour or vulgarity by Jon or Larry, nor lack of courage or integrity. I've seen the opposite in them.
Of course *YOU* wouldn't, Merlin. That's because the evidence shows
you to be a shill for the house.
("Merlin" isn't nearly as anonymous as he would like you to believe
-- and I rather suspect you will be amused at where the evidence leads.
Our friend Jon is the Beverly Sills of the Sierra foothills, and no
his website (http://www.imagecomp.com/beaver/personal.htm), he proudly
reveals that baby brother Robert had taken the CA bar and was awaiting
the results.
That's right. Robert (not "Bob" or even "Bobby") Beaver.
And what do we find on USENET? One Robert Beaver (a.k.a., "Merlin")
(RBeaver@Midtown.Net), who presumably changed ISPs in the interim.
When Robert Beaver was still using his real name in 1995, he openly
identified himself in misc.legal.moderated as a law student. Again,
entirely consistent with Jon's webpage. A later (and more intriguing)
post (attached) explains why Robert adopted the "Merlin" handle.
Granted, it might not be enough to convict O.J. in South Central, but
I suspect that everyone here can do the math.)
Their points were generally cogent, and both are clearly men of principle. There is honor abundant in that.
At this point, I would submit that neither Jon nor "Merlin" have the
standing to wax poetic about honor or principle. Merlin is obviously a
shill for the house, and I find it unfathomable that Jon would not know
of the true state of affairs.
Honor? Courage? Integrity? It would appear on the face of it that
they are undiscovered countries for you, Merlin.
Your personal attacks are without just cause.
From where I am sitting, it would appear you are uniquely unqualified
to render a fair and impartial judgment on that point, "Merlin." :)
--
Ken Smith
10-10-2003, 05:28 PM
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:02:36 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote: It's about not making OUR government officials answerable privately to YOU for their alleged "misconduct." Give me a good reason why they shouldn't be, Jon. I'm just identifying the issue. If you want to argue the merits, call your legislator. If you aren't intimately familiar with the historical rationale for sovereign immunity, why are you trying to sue the government without a lawyer?
[?!?] Last time I cheked, I was suing individual tortfeasors, under the
theory of Carey v. Piphus. I recognize that our courts are probably too
corrupt to do their jobs, but if the tort claims do survive, I have counsel
waiting in the wings to handle that aspect of the controversy. As I see
it, this is a "battle of the briefs," and I have neither the resources nor the
inclination to engage counsel to do what I could do myself at a far more
reasonable cost.
IOW, I'd prefer to take long vacations in Australia. :)
Merlin
10-10-2003, 06:58 PM
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.--------------0C94A523D70D3F80DF736A3CContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitMerlin wrote: Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:28:21 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:>Professional.troublemaker@bureauRAThut.org wrote:>>>Thanks to Dan Evans for his insightful and helpful information and to Merlin>>for pointing out the 11th Amendment. This gives me a good starting place. Now>>if I just can summon the stamina and resources to take on the state, that would>>be a major victory.>>>>If someone would entertain a followup? Are there some states where it's easier>>to sue than others? Mention was made of Penn. which has a law that allows this.>>Does any of this depend to any degree on what Federal Circuit the state is>>in?>>>>>> It was Larry who cited the eleventh amendment, but he's a public> servant getting used to others taking credit for his work, so yer> welcome, troublemaker.>> As for suing, your starting place is a lawyer, seriously, but as for> location you'll find that you can sue with equal facility in all> fifty US States.... except maybe its easier in Colorado where> they have one less lawyer clogging the courts than in other> places.... yet remember that your likelyhood of winning is> somewhat improved relative to the likelyhood of getting> yourself into a lot of trouble, in jurisdictions where you> actually have a viable case. So keep that in mind when> you talk to that lawyer. Good luck!Remember also that suing someone for the purpose of causing them"trouble" is the classic abuse of process.- Jon Beaver As our own Ken Smith discovered to his destruction. Uh, never mind that two courts of competent jurisdiction consideredsaid claim, and threw it out. Facts like that never get in the way of theBoy Beaver's defamatory remarks....
No one has defamed you. Get help.
Now stop spamming multiple newsgroups before someone calls
earthlink security and has them haul your computer away.
-Merlin
Ken Smith
10-11-2003, 04:23 AM
Merlin wrote:
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Merlin wrote: Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >Remember also that suing someone for the purpose of causing them >"trouble" is the classic abuse of process. > >- Jon Beaver As our own Ken Smith discovered to his destruction. Uh, never mind that two courts of competent jurisdiction consideredsaid claim, and threw it out. Facts like that never get in the way of theBoy Beaver's defamatory remarks.... No one has defamed you.
Okay, so now you're no one. I'll accept that answer. Besides, anyone
related to Jon Beaver would pretty much *have* to be no one -- rather
by definition.
I can appreciate why you're embarrassed to admit the genetic link.
Merlin wrote: "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
Ken... these personal attacks against Jon and Larryare neither deserved or effective against them. They areonly effective against you.Oh, baloney. Neither of them have shown him the slightest courtesy andneither have you. And Larry is a puerile little prick with a mega-ego andonly a passable knowledge of law. He will never be a Clarence Darrow orLouis Nizer.
[snip]
Beaver undertook to criticize Ken's cause, and in an unlawyerlike, vulgarmanner too. I called him on his record, and he became evasive. It isrelevant that he has no significant experience pursuing appeals if heundertakes to rake Ken and Ken's causes over the coals.I don't see that any of the three of you have any honor, and you probablywould have sided against Zola and Dreyfus in the Dreyfus case. Alwayseasier (and safer) to go with the flow, you know. I saw no 'unlawyerlike' behaviour or vulgarity by Jon or Larry, nor lack of courage or integrity. I've seen the opposite in them.
Of course *YOU* wouldn't, Merlin. That's because the evidence shows
you to be a shill for the house.
("Merlin" isn't nearly as anonymous as he would like you to believe
-- and I rather suspect you will be amused at where the evidence leads.
Our friend Jon is the Beverly Sills of the Sierra foothills, and no
his website (http://www.imagecomp.com/beaver/personal.htm), he proudly
reveals that baby brother Robert had taken the CA bar and was awaiting
the results.
That's right. Robert (not "Bob" or even "Bobby") Beaver.
And what do we find on USENET? One Robert Beaver (a.k.a., "Merlin")
(RBeaver@Midtown.Net), who presumably changed ISPs in the interim.
When Robert Beaver was still using his real name in 1995, he openly
identified himself in misc.legal.moderated as a law student. Again,
entirely consistent with Jon's webpage. A later (and more intriguing)
post (attached) explains why Robert adopted the "Merlin" handle.
Granted, it might not be enough to convict O.J. in South Central, but
I suspect that everyone here can do the math.)
Their points were generally cogent, and both are clearly men of principle. There is honor abundant in that.
At this point, I would submit that neither Jon nor "Merlin" have the
standing to wax poetic about honor or principle. Merlin is obviously a
shill for the house, and I find it unfathomable that Jon would not know
of the true state of affairs.
Honor? Courage? Integrity? It would appear on the face of it that
they are undiscovered countries for you, Merlin.
Your personal attacks are without just cause.
From where I am sitting, it would appear you are uniquely unqualified
to render a fair and impartial judgment on that point, "Merlin." :)
--
Merlin
10-11-2003, 02:02 PM
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Merlin wrote:
Again, no one has defamed you. You are obviously
ill, and need some help.
A number of people have brought this problem
to your attention, including numerous posters, some
of whom are lawyers, and the Colorado Board of Bar
examiners, the Colorado Supreme Court, and two
Federal Courts including the 10th Circuit Federal Court
of Appeals.
http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm
As further indications of your illness you have been
posting lengthy, repetitious, and vitreolic personal attacks to
multiple newsgroups which slander others who
have done nothing to harm you except to disagree
with you, and you appear unable to control
yourself. Now, I'll ask again, please cease your
spamming and slander.
And Ken.... do get some professional help.
-Merlin
Ken Smith
10-13-2003, 03:32 AM
Merlin wrote:
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Merlin wrote: Again, no one has defamed you. You are obviously ill, and need some help.
In point of fact, I've got one ***** of a migraine this morning. It's
why I've been on-line so long. :(
Again, your refusal to admit your genetic link to that psychopathic
trained baby-killing machine we know and loathe as Jon Beaver is
duly noted.
If he was my big brother, I'd be embarrassed, too. :)
Merlin wrote: "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
Ken... these personal attacks against Jon and Larryare neither deserved or effective against them. They areonly effective against you.Oh, baloney. Neither of them have shown him the slightest courtesy andneither have you. And Larry is a puerile little prick with a mega-ego andonly a passable knowledge of law. He will never be a Clarence Darrow orLouis Nizer.
[snip]
Beaver undertook to criticize Ken's cause, and in an unlawyerlike, vulgarmanner too. I called him on his record, and he became evasive. It isrelevant that he has no significant experience pursuing appeals if heundertakes to rake Ken and Ken's causes over the coals.I don't see that any of the three of you have any honor, and you probablywould have sided against Zola and Dreyfus in the Dreyfus case. Alwayseasier (and safer) to go with the flow, you know. I saw no 'unlawyerlike' behaviour or vulgarity by Jon or Larry, nor lack of courage or integrity. I've seen the opposite in them.
Of course *YOU* wouldn't, Merlin. That's because the evidence shows
you to be a shill for the house.
("Merlin" isn't nearly as anonymous as he would like you to believe
-- and I rather suspect you will be amused at where the evidence leads.
Our friend Jon is the Beverly Sills of the Sierra foothills, and no
his website (http://www.imagecomp.com/beaver/personal.htm), he proudly
reveals that baby brother Robert had taken the CA bar and was awaiting
the results.
That's right. Robert (not "Bob" or even "Bobby") Beaver.
And what do we find on USENET? One Robert Beaver (a.k.a., "Merlin")
(RBeaver@Midtown.Net), who presumably changed ISPs in the interim.
When Robert Beaver was still using his real name in 1995, he openly
identified himself in misc.legal.moderated as a law student. Again,
entirely consistent with Jon's webpage. A later (and more intriguing)
post (attached) explains why Robert adopted the "Merlin" handle.
Granted, it might not be enough to convict O.J. in South Central, but
I suspect that everyone here can do the math.)
Their points were generally cogent, and both are clearly men of principle. There is honor abundant in that.
At this point, I would submit that neither Jon nor "Merlin" have the
standing to wax poetic about honor or principle. Merlin is obviously a
shill for the house, and I find it unfathomable that Jon would not know
of the true state of affairs.
Honor? Courage? Integrity? It would appear on the face of it that
they are undiscovered countries for you, Merlin.
Your personal attacks are without just cause.
From where I am sitting, it would appear you are uniquely unqualified
to render a fair and impartial judgment on that point, "Merlin." :)
--
Complete Labor
Law Poster for $24.95 from www.LaborLawCenter.com,
includes State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements
