In article <20030629173811.21428.00001362@mb-m05.aol.com>,
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Ok, everybody... i am new to the news group, and have been reading thisColorado Board thread for darn near a week. It would seem to me that someone bynow would have a basic, straightforward affirmation or rebuttal to what soundslike the core of the Ken Smith case.....Does a Bar Applicant HAVE the First Amendment rights to say what he wants/needsto say..... evidently in this case to maintain a website... or does he NOT ??

Everyone has rights under the first amendment. That's not the issue
here. bar associations also have duties to investigate their members and
potential members to ensure they have the character, fitness, and ethical
qualities necessary to be a lawyer. If something you say or write causes
them to question your fitness to practice law, they can deny you admission
to the bar, following their own procedures and guidelines. You may or may
not be able to appeal, you may or may not have judicial recourse, but its
not a first amendment issue. No one is trying to shut down a web site or
limit your speech.
If he DOES ---and we can all agree he does--- then what the Colorado group hasdone to him is horrifying and needs to be exposed on 60 Minutes... tonight.If he DOES NOT --- and we can all agree he does not--- then what does this meanto not only the *rest* of the people in our law schools, but how far does thatchilling effect extend ?? Where IS the line for when free speech is no longerfree ??

The first amendment doesn't say you have the right to free speech and to
also be free from any consequences of that speech. It says you have the
right to free speech and the right to live with the consequences.
Guys, lets all start HERE. Quit calling each other idiots until you know oneanother at least a little bit better, leave the images of cocksucking a judgeto Eminem or Madonna and for god's sake leave the Bible at home. At the veryleast, Ken has a case that should be raising our eyebrows. I dont know aboutthe rest of you, but what sounds like is at stake here is wayyy too importantto be lost in the background noise.

This would be true if he had any evidence other than his claims that he
was prevented from joining the bar by some conspiracy of prosecutors, the
bar association, judges, and the National Conference of Bar Examiners - at
least thoser are the entities he's named so far.

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:none-2906031823360001@192.168.2.4... In article <20030629173811.21428.00001362@mb-m05.aol.com>, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Ok, everybody... i am new to the news group, and have been reading thisColorado Board thread for darn near a week. It would seem to me that
someone bynow would have a basic, straightforward affirmation or rebuttal to what
soundslike the core of the Ken Smith case.....Does a Bar Applicant HAVE the First Amendment rights to say what he
wants/needsto say..... evidently in this case to maintain a website... or does he
NOT ?? Everyone has rights under the first amendment. That's not the issue here. bar associations

Are you really a lawyer? Bar associations have NO jurisdiction over
lawyers. Ordinarily the jurisdiction to license and discipline lawyers,
shake them down for dues, run them to state capitals for CLE, and keep them
under surveillance rests with the state bar, which is a subsidiary of the
supreme court of that state.


also have duties to investigate their members and potential members to ensure they have the character, fitness, and ethical qualities necessary to be a lawyer. If something you say or write causes them to question your fitness to practice law, they can deny you admission to the bar, following their own procedures and guidelines.

Gosh, what an inane statement. What procedures and guidelines? If I
publish something denying the existence of their Almighty God**, does that
darken my character and disqualify me? Many of them don't even have
anything even vaguely articulable. In NY Nathan Willner was denied
admission because two lawyers said they didn't like him, and he couldn't
even read the letters sent to the committee on character and fitness.

Did Ken Smith yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, do you suppose? If he did
what he says he did, i. e., litigate against a fundy televangelist sleazoid
and expose him as a scoundrel in Colorado, the bar should have awarded him
with a certificate of merit, but instead they sat and condescended as
medieval priests and denied him the right to practice his chosen profession
because one of their fellow priests had been humiliated by him. That's the
way I see it. You look at it with your own shallow predilections and
shifty eyes lacking the ability to focus, and I'll view it with all its
warts.

Take a look at the collected cases on the subject in ALR. I have read a
slew of them. In NC the bar disciplined some attorneys who had a newspaper
which regularly raked the politicians, including the judges, over the coals.
My recollection of that case is that the appellate court ruled that by
becoming members of the bar attorneys do not thereby abandon, waive, or lose
their First Amendment rights.

What is it you think Smith may have done to deserve a blackball?



You may or may not be able to appeal, you may or may not have judicial recourse, but its not a first amendment issue. No one is trying to shut down a web site or limit your speech.

Oh, bull****. Being punished or denied a license to hoe potatoes, or sell
tobacco, or practice law for the assertion of your First Amendment rights is
indeed a free speech issue. Prior restraint is not the only violation of
freedom of expression.
If he DOES ---and we can all agree he does--- then what the Colorado
group hasdone to him is horrifying and needs to be exposed on 60 Minutes...
tonight.If he DOES NOT --- and we can all agree he does not--- then what does
this meanto not only the *rest* of the people in our law schools, but how far does
thatchilling effect extend ?? Where IS the line for when free speech is no
longerfree ?? The first amendment doesn't say you have the right to free speech and to also be free from any consequences of that speech.

Well, I kinda doubt this guy has read many cases on the First Amendment, and
he very well may adore Joseph McCarthy, because much of the First Amendment
litigation relates to state action punishing someone for pursuing his right
to freedom of expression.

Larry loves big brother. "Arbitrary and capricious" are not in his
vocabulary. He doesn't have a clue what they mean.


It says you have the right to free speech and the right to live with the consequences.

Meaning, effectively, that admission to the bar is a matter of grace and
favor by the committee on character and fitness. And that you remain a
member after admission at the pleasure of the bar. If I call you a
cocksu**ing so* of a bitc*, then, a bar committee passing on my character
and fitness could very well find, under your rather skimpy and nebulous
reasoning, that I am unfit to practice law. Matter of fact Anastaplo was
refused admission to the bar because he relied on precepts stated in the
Declaration of Independence.

And the old bard said, the biggest thieves may well sit among those sworn to
pass on the life of the accused.
Guys, lets all start HERE. Quit calling each other idiots until you know
oneanother at least a little bit better, leave the images of cocksucking a
judgeto Eminem or Madonna and for god's sake leave the Bible at home.

Trouble is the bar committees don't leave their bibles at home. They call
those already marked for rejection before them in secret hearings and
harangue them about their lack of religion, whether they are church members,
and their "service to their fellow man" and then shoot them down, and not a
damn thing can be done about it. I went through a similar ordeal with a
team of dark age inquisitors from corporate and banking firms in South
Carolina. In his book, _No Contest,_ exposing the corporatocracy which has
taken control of lawyer licensing committees across the land, Ralph Nader
shows in case after case of corruption in the bar that powerful lawyers
commit felonies with impunity and the lawyers for the little guy are the
sacrificial lambs for the corruption of the legal profession.


At the veryleast, Ken has a case that should be raising our eyebrows. I dont know
aboutthe rest of you, but what sounds like is at stake here is wayyy too
importantto be lost in the background noise. This would be true if he had any evidence other than his claims that he was prevented from joining the bar by some conspiracy of prosecutors, the bar association, judges, and the National Conference of Bar Examiners* -
at least thoser are the entities he's named so far.

You've never read his complaint and don't know what his evidence is unless
you are privy to the record. And knowing just a little of how you skim
over the issues, you're good at distorting them to suit your purpose du
jour.

The best I can tell is that the Colorado bar are applying the "nut and slut"
approach. So because he's exposed a charlatan by use of the civil courts,
that makes him stand out as a nut and a slut. Weren't the Soviets adept at
yanking up a dissident and making him to appear as if he were a mental case?

The whole idea is to refuse the applicant any confrontation with witnesses
or documents against him, treat him as deviously as possible by giving him
short notice, get NCBE to build (or fabricate or whatever it takes) a
confidential dossier on him undiscoverable by FOIA because he has had to
waive his right to inspect as a condition of his application, deny him
review, and tell him his remedy is cert with the US Supreme Court, wherein
his chances for review are about 1 in 1,000.

Bingo. You have permanently smeared and attainted him with a private bill
of attainder, exiled him, put him in fear of want and poverty, and made him
to appear as if he were a nut and a slut, when in actuality he's like the
gifted, honorable fellow who was kicked out of Greece and Russia for his
beliefs and graduated the University of Chicago with honors but could not
practice law because admission to the bar is for PLU only, is by grace and
favor and being blue-blooded and not being controversial in the least and
then, of course, you must know how to kiss rings and go to church on Sunday
with your King James Bible in plain view.

*This Orwellian Ministry of Truth is staffed by shady ex-FBI agents. It is
secret dirt bank and a double first cousin of the Stasi and NKVD.



**Mammon

Larry Smith wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:none-2906031823360001@192.168.2.4... In article <20030629173811.21428.00001362@mb-m05.aol.com>, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Ok, everybody... i am new to the news group, and have been reading thisColorado Board thread for darn near a week. It would seem to me that someone bynow would have a basic, straightforward affirmation or rebuttal to what soundslike the core of the Ken Smith case.....Does a Bar Applicant HAVE the First Amendment rights to say what he wants/needsto say..... evidently in this case to maintain a website... or does he NOT ?? Everyone has rights under the first amendment. That's not the issue here. bar associations Are you really a lawyer? Bar associations have NO jurisdiction over lawyers. Ordinarily the jurisdiction to license and discipline lawyers, shake them down for dues, run them to state capitals for CLE, and keep them under surveillance rests with the state bar, which is a subsidiary of the supreme court of that state. also have duties to investigate their members and potential members to ensure they have the character, fitness, and ethical qualities necessary to be a lawyer. If something you say or write causes them to question your fitness to practice law, they can deny you admission to the bar, following their own procedures and guidelines. Gosh, what an inane statement. What procedures and guidelines?

It wouldn't be so bad if they'd at least FOLLOW their procedures
and guidelines -- but Colorado went so far off the reservation that the
entire judicial profession is embarrassed.

As you have said, they will do their level best to cover this one up.
My only hope is to make enough noise that it will get the attention of
the press. It's a Cardinal Law-class scandal.
If I publish something denying the existence of their Almighty God**, does that darken my character and disqualify me? Many of them don't even have anything even vaguely articulable. In NY Nathan Willner was denied admission because two lawyers said they didn't like him, and he couldn't even read the letters sent to the committee on character and fitness. Did Ken Smith yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, do you suppose? If he did what he says he did, i. e., litigate against a fundy televangelist sleazoid and expose him as a scoundrel in Colorado, the bar should have awarded him with a certificate of merit, but instead they sat and condescended as medieval priests and denied him the right to practice his chosen profession because one of their fellow priests had been humiliated by him. That's the way I see it. You look at it with your own shallow predilections and shifty eyes lacking the ability to focus, and I'll view it with all its warts. Take a look at the collected cases on the subject in ALR. I have read a slew of them. In NC the bar disciplined some attorneys who had a newspaper which regularly raked the politicians, including the judges, over the coals. My recollection of that case is that the appellate court ruled that by becoming members of the bar attorneys do not thereby abandon, waive, or lose their First Amendment rights. What is it you think Smith may have done to deserve a blackball? You may or may not be able to appeal, you may or may not have judicial recourse, but its not a first amendment issue. No one is trying to shut down a web site or limit your speech. Oh, bull****. Being punished or denied a license to hoe potatoes, or sell tobacco, or practice law for the assertion of your First Amendment rights is indeed a free speech issue. Prior restraint is not the only violation of freedom of expression.If he DOES ---and we can all agree he does--- then what the Colorado group hasdone to him is horrifying and needs to be exposed on 60 Minutes... tonight.If he DOES NOT --- and we can all agree he does not--- then what does this meanto not only the *rest* of the people in our law schools, but how far does thatchilling effect extend ?? Where IS the line for when free speech is no longerfree ?? The first amendment doesn't say you have the right to free speech and to also be free from any consequences of that speech. Well, I kinda doubt this guy has read many cases on the First Amendment, and he very well may adore Joseph McCarthy, because much of the First Amendment litigation relates to state action punishing someone for pursuing his right to freedom of expression. Larry loves big brother. "Arbitrary and capricious" are not in his vocabulary. He doesn't have a clue what they mean.

One thing I learned in my previous career as a CPA was that
if you didn't know the answer cold, you were always better off
keeping your mouth shut. This 'Larry' character has soiled his
reputation and that of the Bar, and would be better off returning
under a new alias.
It says you have the right to free speech and the right to live with the consequences. Meaning, effectively, that admission to the bar is a matter of grace and favor by the committee on character and fitness.

Never mind Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 (1971).
And that you remain a member after admission at the pleasure of the bar. If I call you a cocksu**ing so* of a bitc*, then, a bar committee passing on my character and fitness could very well find, under your rather skimpy and nebulous reasoning, that I am unfit to practice law. Matter of fact Anastaplo was refused admission to the bar because he relied on precepts stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Anastaplo is a frightening case, even though it was decided at the height
of the Cold War. To read what he said to those examiners is shocking to
anyone who cares about the Bill of Rights.

All Larry seems to care about is the right to send bills.
And the old bard said, the biggest thieves may well sit among those sworn to pass on the life of the accused.Guys, lets all start HERE. Quit calling each other idiots until you know oneanother at least a little bit better, leave the images of cocksucking a judgeto Eminem or Madonna and for god's sake leave the Bible at home. Trouble is the bar committees don't leave their bibles at home. They call those already marked for rejection before them in secret hearings and harangue them about their lack of religion, whether they are church members, and their "service to their fellow man" and then shoot them down, and not a damn thing can be done about it. I went through a similar ordeal with a team of dark age inquisitors from corporate and banking firms in South Carolina. In his book, _No Contest,_ exposing the corporatocracy which has taken control of lawyer licensing committees across the land, Ralph Nader shows in case after case of corruption in the bar that powerful lawyers commit felonies with impunity and the lawyers for the little guy are the sacrificial lambs for the corruption of the legal profession.At the veryleast, Ken has a case that should be raising our eyebrows. I dont know aboutthe rest of you, but what sounds like is at stake here is wayyy too importantto be lost in the background noise. This would be true if he had any evidence other than his claims that he was prevented from joining the bar by some conspiracy of prosecutors, the bar association, judges, and the National Conference of Bar Examiners* - at least thoser are the entities he's named so far. You've never read his complaint and don't know what his evidence is unless you are privy to the record. And knowing just a little of how you skim over the issues, you're good at distorting them to suit your purpose du jour. The best I can tell is that the Colorado bar are applying the "nut and slut" approach. So because he's exposed a charlatan by use of the civil courts, that makes him stand out as a nut and a slut. Weren't the Soviets adept at yanking up a dissident and making him to appear as if he were a mental case? The whole idea is to refuse the applicant any confrontation with witnesses or documents against him, treat him as deviously as possible by giving him short notice, get NCBE to build (or fabricate or whatever it takes) a confidential dossier on him undiscoverable by FOIA because he has had to waive his right to inspect as a condition of his application, deny him review, and tell him his remedy is cert with the US Supreme Court, wherein his chances for review are about 1 in 1,000. Bingo. You have permanently smeared and attainted him with a private bill of attainder, exiled him, put him in fear of want and poverty, and made him to appear as if he were a nut and a slut, when in actuality he's like the gifted, honorable fellow who was kicked out of Greece and Russia for his beliefs and graduated the University of Chicago with honors but could not practice law because admission to the bar is for PLU only, is by grace and favor and being blue-blooded and not being controversial in the least and then, of course, you must know how to kiss rings and go to church on Sunday with your King James Bible in plain view. *This Orwellian Ministry of Truth is staffed by shady ex-FBI agents. It is secret dirt bank and a double first cousin of the Stasi and NKVD. **Mammon

In article <vfv9dfbbvgksba@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith"
<dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:Are you really a lawyer? Bar associations have NO jurisdiction overlawyers. Ordinarily the jurisdiction to license and discipline lawyers,shake them down for dues, run them to state capitals for CLE, and keep themunder surveillance rests with the state bar, which is a subsidiary of thesupreme court of that state.

Right. And in some states, the state bar is also known as the state bar
association.
also have duties to investigate their members and potential members to ensure they have the character, fitness, and ethical qualities necessary to be a lawyer. If something you say or write causes them to question your fitness to practice law, they can deny you admission to the bar, following their own procedures and guidelines.Gosh, what an inane statement. What procedures and guidelines?

Depends on the state, don't you think? The NY bar, for example, ha
sdetailed rules., See, e.g.:

<http://www.nybarexam.org/boardrul.htm>
<http://www.nybarexam.org/court.htm>
Take a look at the collected cases on the subject in ALR. I have read aslew of them. In NC the bar disciplined some attorneys who had a newspaperwhich regularly raked the politicians, including the judges, over the coals.

Yes. Disparaging judges and other attorneys in public is generally an
ethical violation. I happen to agree with you in disagreeing with this
rule, as it perpectuates the old-boy's-club even if there isn't one. But
the idea is I can't stand on the courthouse steps and say I lost a case
because of that schmuck judge or that scumbag opposing lawyer (which is
alot like what Ken is doing with his posts, BTW) because it lowers the
image of the profession to laypeople - but more importantly, makes
laypeople think there are schmucks and scumbags who will tand in the way
of them achieving jsutice should they be a party in litigation.
My recollection of that case is that the appellate court ruled that bybecoming members of the bar attorneys do not thereby abandon, waive, or losetheir First Amendment rights.

Right. Most constitutional rights are unwaivable.
What is it you think Smith may have done to deserve a blackball?

I have no idea. I haven't conceded that he was blackballed. He seems to
think he was.
Oh, bull****. Being punished or denied a license to hoe potatoes, or selltobacco, or practice law for the assertion of your First Amendment rights isindeed a free speech issue. Prior restraint is not the only violation offreedom of expression.

But character and fitness is by definition subjective. It's a
determination of whether you have the character and fitness necessary to
be an attorney in goods standing. So of course your speech in the past
comes into play here. Look at Matthew Hale. If I said I hated the
government, and I would sabatoge every case I had in order to create more
work for the courts (not to mention a prediction that I'd embezzle from my
clients at will), do you think I should be admitted? After all, to not
admit me would be a decision based solely on my speech!
Larry loves big brother. "Arbitrary and capricious" are not in hisvocabulary. He doesn't have a clue what they mean.

I know what they mean. And I'd need to read the written decision again to
form an opinion as to whether that's a description of what happened here.
Meaning, effectively, that admission to the bar is a matter of grace andfavor by the committee on character and fitness.

Well, in a way, yes. You can't quantify character and fitness into
objecte criteria, can you? Maybe by a multiple choice test, but that's
already given for bar admission - the MPRE.
And that you remain amember after admission at the pleasure of the bar.

No you don't. Once you have a law license, or a license of any kind, you
have a property interest in that license. Thus, due process is required
to take it away from you. Isn't that your entire point?
If I call you acocksu**ing so* of a bitc*, then, a bar committee passing on my characterand fitness could very well find, under your rather skimpy and nebulousreasoning, that I am unfit to practice law.

Exactly. See my comments above. This is neither skimpy nor nebulous. If
it was, don't you think ONE bar examiner in ONE state would agree with
you?
This would be true if he had any evidence other than his claims that he was prevented from joining the bar by some conspiracy of prosecutors, the bar association, judges, and the National Conference of Bar Examiners* -at least thoser are the entities he's named so far.You've never read his complaint and don't know what his evidence is unlessyou are privy to the record. And knowing just a little of how you skimover the issues, you're good at distorting them to suit your purpose dujour.

What am I distorting? I'm just naming the groups he has accused of being
part of the conspiracy in his (many) threads on this topic.
The whole idea is to refuse the applicant any confrontation with witnessesor documents against him, treat him as deviously as possible by giving himshort notice, get NCBE to build (or fabricate or whatever it takes) aconfidential dossier on him undiscoverable by FOIA because he has had towaive his right to inspect as a condition of his application, deny himreview, and tell him his remedy is cert with the US Supreme Court, whereinhis chances for review are about 1 in 1,000.

Riiiight. State bars tell the NCBE what to do? In NY, at least,
everything the NCBE is involved with related to my bar application is
completed before the character and fitness portion of the
application/admission process. Nice try.
*This Orwellian Ministry of Truth is staffed by shady ex-FBI agents. It issecret dirt bank and a double first cousin of the Stasi and NKVD.

Again.....conspiracy, anyone?

In article <3EFFE263.679A4B86@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: It wouldn't be so bad if they'd at least FOLLOW their proceduresand guidelines -- but Colorado went so far off the reservation that theentire judicial profession is embarrassed.

Nothing the Colorado bar does or doesn't do embarasses me as a lawyer.
Anyone who knows that each state's bar is a completely separate entity,
with their own licensing guidelines, procedures, and personnel knows that
what happens in Colorado has no effect, and is not effected by, any other
bar.
One thing I learned in my previous career as a CPA was thatif you didn't know the answer cold, you were always better offkeeping your mouth shut. This 'Larry' character has soiled hisreputation and that of the Bar, and would be better off returningunder a new alias.

I happen to have a very solid reputation among those who have actually
seen me in practice. Victims, colleagues, and defense attorneys alike.
Meaning, effectively, that admission to the bar is a matter of grace and favor by the committee on character and fitness.

Character, by definition, has at least a small subjective factor to it,
don't you think?
All Larry seems to care about is the right to send bills.

If you read my posts, you'd know I was a prosecutor. Neverin my life sent
a bill, collected a bill, logged billable hours, or kept track of the time
I spent on individual cases.

Larry wrote:
In article <vfv9dfbbvgksba@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:

[snip]
Take a look at the collected cases on the subject in ALR. I have read aslew of them. In NC the bar disciplined some attorneys who had a newspaperwhich regularly raked the politicians, including the judges, over the coals. Yes. Disparaging judges and other attorneys in public is generally an ethical violation.

Where? Disparaging judges and other attorneys in public without cause
may be an ethical violation, but any rule that prevents you from speaking
the truth is a prima facie First Amendment violation. [But then again, it is
doubtful that our friend Larry could find the 1Am on a bet -- much less,
have any semblance of a clue as to what it actually means.]
I happen to agree with you in disagreeing with this rule, as it perpectuates the old-boy's-club even if there isn't one. But the idea is I can't stand on the courthouse steps and say I lost a case because of that schmuck judge or that scumbag opposing lawyer (which is alot like what Ken is doing with his posts, BTW)

And you *have* filed a complaint against Professor Dershowitz?

"It is widely known that many state court judges and some lower court
judges play favorites among litigants and lawyers. Roy Cohn once fam-
ously quipped, 'I don't care if my opponent knows the law, as long as I
know the judge.' In the old days, it was financial corruption -- cash
changed hands. Then it became the 'favor bank,' in which personal favors
are quietly stored and exchanged. I have seen it with my own eyes in the
courts of Boston, NEW YORK, and elsewhere."
-- Prof. Alan Dershowitz
Supreme Injustice, p. 116
(e.a.)

If Ken can point to evidence of corruption -- such as a judge's willful
failure to follow binding precedent that has been brought to his attention
-- then Ken can responsibly make the allegation that the judge is indeed
corrupt. Remember, his job is to apply the law to the facts, and judges
at the trial court level are presumptively bound by stare decisis.
because it lowers the image of the profession to laypeople -

ROTFLMAO! How could I *POSSIBLY* do *THAT*?!?!?

The mere fact of having you in the profession -- and making the state-
ments you do to defend it, in light of facial evidence of corruption therein
-- so lowers its image that I could not possibly sully it. Besides, when it
comes to denigrating the legal profession's image, I could hardly improve
upon the confessions of Professor Dershowitz.
Now, riddle me this, Larry: If Professor Dershowitz has seen corrup-
tion in our courts, and Larry Smith has seen corruption in our courts,
how is it that I could not *possibly* be the victim of corruption in our
courts?
but more importantly, makes laypeople think there are schmucks and scumbags who will tand in the way of them achieving jsutice should they be a party in litigation.

Larry, it appears that you have become so accustomed to lying
that you have no qualms about it whatsoever. Quite a testament
to the character of members of the profession, eh?

Not publicly admitting that there are Catholic priests who molest
altar boys protected those priests, and permitted them to continue
on molesting defenseless children. By the same token, not being
able to say that there are corrupt judges and incompetent lawyers
like you out there enables you to continue sodomizing the Consti-
tution. If there *is* such a 'rule' out there, it is not only unconstitu-
tional but outrageously so.

A constitutionally-correct rule would be closer to Colo. RPC
8.2(a), which says that a lawyer shall not make a statement that
he knows to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth con-
cerning the qualifications or integrity of a judicial officer. Thus, if
I can say that a lawyer is a scumbag or a judge is corrupt -- and
point to evidence supporting that statement -- the Rule says that
I am within my rights, and cannot be touched.
My recollection of that case is that the appellate court ruled that bybecoming members of the bar attorneys do not thereby abandon, waive, or losetheir First Amendment rights. Right. Most constitutional rights are unwaivable.

And by definition, just criticism of the Bar is thus permissible.
What is it you think Smith may have done to deserve a blackball? I have no idea. I haven't conceded that he was blackballed. He seems to think he was.

Not only that, but I pointed to specific statements evidencing the
assertion that I was blackballed for the exercise of constitutionally
protected speech. But then again, you don't want to consider the
facts, because you have made up your mind already....
Oh, bull****. Being punished or denied a license to hoe potatoes, or selltobacco, or practice law for the assertion of your First Amendment rights isindeed a free speech issue. Prior restraint is not the only violation offreedom of expression. But character and fitness is by definition subjective. It's a determination of whether you have the character and fitness necessary to be an attorney in goods standing.

I see. If you are a cocaine-dealing convicted felon with documented
ties to the Democratic Party, you have the character and fitness neces-
sary to be an attorney in good standing -- but if you are a Republican
candidate for the state House, you aren't, and can be denied a license
TWO DAYS after you lose your election bid? [two fact situations of
which I am aware here in CO]

The problem with a perfectly vague standard is that it is *infinitely*
elastic, and leaves day-to-day decisionmaking in the hands of the cop
on the beat. Coates. Papachristou. But then again, you are a Nazi
lawyer -- who has absolutely *no* problem with dictators, as long as
they let you keep on ginning....
So of course your speech in the past comes into play here. Look at Matthew Hale.

Let's look at Matthew Hale. I have been to his website, and find his
views *almost* as repugnant as I find yours. (I would sooner admit a
Matthew Hale to the bar than I would you -- as I find that "character"
requires some semblance of a spine.) But the purpose behind the Bill
of Rights and the First Amendment in particular is to protect unpopular
individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the
hand of an intolerant society. McIntyre.
I don't see why even a racist who preaches respect for the law and
the need to work through the law to achieve his political ends cannot
be an effective lawyer. And I don't trust bureaucrats to make princi-
pled decisions. Cohen. If he doesn't want to defend a "****** beast,"
as he puts it, then he can decline representation -- there are plenty of
lawyers out there who will defend one. Where's the *harm*, Larry?

With all due respect, your breathtaking lack of regard for the First
Amendment and its purposes visits *more* shame on the profession
than letting a Matthew Hale be an advocate for his pet causes. For
my part, I agree with Justice Brandeis when he observes that silence
coerced by law is the argument of force in its worst form. But you,
good Ba'athist that you are, think the Great Saddam knows best for
us! Shame on you, Larry!
If I said I hated the government, and I would sabatoge every case I had in order to create more work for the courts (not to mention a prediction that I'd embezzle from my clients at will), do you think I should be admitted? After all, to not admit me would be a decision based solely on my speech!

I have more of a problem with bar examiners wrongfully depriving
people of the right to practice their chosen profession on a nebulous
ground like "character and fitness" than I do the bizarre hypothetical
you posit here. After all, there are rules against unethical conduct,
and if state bars actually enforced them -- Ralph Nader has shown
that, by and large, they do not! -- there wouldn't be that much of a
need for that shamelessly unconstitutional 'hazing' process. See, D.
Rhode, "Moral Character as a Professional Credential," 94 Yale L.J.
491 (1985).
Larry loves big brother. "Arbitrary and capricious" are not in hisvocabulary. He doesn't have a clue what they mean. I know what they mean. And I'd need to read the written decision again to form an opinion as to whether that's a description of what happened here.

But shouldn't I have the right to challenge the decision, as a matter
of right, in some semblance of a fair tribunal? You seem to think that
I should not.

[snipped rest]

Larry wrote:
In article <3EFFE263.679A4B86@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: It wouldn't be so bad if they'd at least FOLLOW their proceduresand guidelines -- but Colorado went so far off the reservation that theentire judicial profession is embarrassed. Nothing the Colorado bar does or doesn't do embarasses me as a lawyer.

Sure, it does. When Blowjob Bill lectures us on what the meaning
of the word "is" is, and Saddam Hussein's professional calling is
revealed to the world, it speaks volumes about the character of the
profession.
Anyone who knows that each state's bar is a completely separate entity, with their own licensing guidelines, procedures, and personnel knows that what happens in Colorado has no effect, and is not effected by, any other bar.

We all know that there are 'Nazi lawyers' out there like you -- who
have lost your sense of decency, fair play, and outrage along the way.
When the Bar's SS came for the Jews, the Communists, and others,
you would not 'speak up'. Consider the famous words of Niemoller.
One thing I learned in my previous career as a CPA was thatif you didn't know the answer cold, you were always better offkeeping your mouth shut. This 'Larry' character has soiled hisreputation and that of the Bar, and would be better off returningunder a new alias. I happen to have a very solid reputation among those who have actually seen me in practice. Victims, colleagues, and defense attorneys alike.

How many of your colleagues and adversaries -- especially, those
who went to "better" law schools, like those in CA who have to sit
for the "baby Bar" -- would roll their eyes in laughter at your tragic
defense of the Bar's right to wipe its *** with the Bill of Rights?

You make Hirsch look like a Philadelphia lawyer, and Matt Hale,
a solid citizen! Gerry Spence, you are not! I'll bet if this thread was
sent to your colleagues, your stock would drop like a dot-com.
Meaning, effectively, that admission to the bar is a matter of grace and favor by the committee on character and fitness. Character, by definition, has at least a small subjective factor to it, don't you think?

And if the Bar cannot administer its admission requirements in a
responsible manner, it should be deprived of the right to make the
determination. With power comes responsibility.
All Larry seems to care about is the right to send bills. If you read my posts, you'd know I was a prosecutor. Neverin my life sent a bill, collected a bill, logged billable hours, or kept track of the time I spent on individual cases.

You're interested in protecting the profession against what could
very well be a Cardinal Law-class scandal.

"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3F016422.E97EA633@concentric.net...


No attachments, please.

--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3F016422.E97EA633@concentric.net... No attachments, please.

If something significant has been tendentiously snipped, don't
you agree that it is efficient to merely re-attach it? There's no
rule of which I am aware against attaching simple text files.

Ken Smith wrote:
Larry wrote: Ken Smith wrote:
This may be the most appallingly ignorant statement I have ever heard come out of the mouth or from the keyboard of any lawyer this side of the Soviet Union. Silly me! And here, I thought two semesters of Con Law were *REQUIRED* for graduation from an ABA-accredited law school. It's time I took this sorry bastard who calls himself a 'lawyer' to school ...

What a smug and supercilious attitude! You should rather learn from them,
for they succeeded where you failed.
Actually, you thought wrong. Show me an ABA requirement that 2 semesters of Con Law are required for graduation from an ABA accredited law school. There is no such requirement. Period.

Ken Smith wrong? What a surprise.
Given your incredibly inane comments, there probably should be. It's painfully obvious that you don't have a clue as to what IS in the Bill of Rights [but then again, practicing in traffic court will tend to do that to you :(]....

Ken Smith was probably one of those little brats who cried and screamed and
threw a tantrum whenever he didn't get his way, and his mommy obliged him on
probably every occasion. Unfortunately, it seems that he has never outgrown
such behaviour.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3F017D23.7B50951E@concentric.net... Scott Hedrick wrote: "Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3F016422.E97EA633@concentric.net... No attachments, please. If something significant has been tendentiously snipped, don't you agree that it is efficient to merely re-attach it?

More efficient to simply paste it into the message.

There's no rule of which I am aware against attaching simple text files.

I usually kill newsgroup attachments unread because of the possibility of
viruses. I don't check to see what kind of file it is beforehand. I also
usually killfile whoever makes such an attachment more than once. In your
case, I didn't because it seemed to be harmless, but I will next time.

In 25 years of computing, most of it without antivirus software, I've never
been damaged by one, and I've only found 2 (both times from files downloaded
from AOL). I'm not going to take chances now. Nothing personal, it's just
worked well so far.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

In article <3F016422.E97EA633@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Larry wrote: In article <3EFFD95A.1BAEC817@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: This may be the most appallingly ignorant statement I have ever heardcome out of the mouth or from the keyboard of any lawyer this side ofthe Soviet Union. Silly me! And here, I thought two semesters of ConLaw were *REQUIRED* for graduation from an ABA-accredited lawschool. It's time I took this sorry bastard who calls himself a 'lawyer' toschool.... Actually, you thought wrong. Show me an ABA requirement that 2 semesters of Con Law are required for graduation from an ABA accredited law school. There is no such requirement. Period. Given your incredibly inane comments, there probably should be.

So you admit you were mistaken? Your subject line makes the baseless
allegation that I am a liar, but you're the one who spouts the
misinformation.
It's painfully obvious that you don't have a clue as to what IS in theBill of Rights [but then again, practicing in traffic court will tend todo that to you :(]....

In NYC, the District Attorney's Office doesn't prosecute traffic
offenses. Nice try.
(which is probably good, because if there were blanket requirements for graduation, you'd be including the ABA in ytour conspiracy theory, I'm sure). Obviously, you were AWOL during that portion of law school.

What portion of law school? The ABA conspiracy portion? What the *&@$^
are you talking about?
Character and fitness is subjective, by definition. And you are quite obviously bereft of both. Next case!

Not according to my state bar's committee on character and fitness, which
found me to possess both. Nice try, again. But the personal attack sure
helped bolster your case.....
If you say you'll assasinate every judge who presides over a case you lose, do you think you should be admitted? What if you say you'll embezzle client funds and violate the attorney-client privilege unless your clients sleep with you? If you declare all these things during the bar application process, do they nonetheleess have to admit you? So if I don't say any of those three things, I'm "in like Flynn?"

You're more likely to be admitted than if you say these things. Please
answer my question:

If you say you'llassasinate every judge who presides over a case you lose,
do you think you should be admitted? What if you say you'll embezzle
client funds and violate the attorney-client privilege unless your clients
sleep with you? If you declare all these things during the bar
application process, do they nonetheleess have to admit you?
I'll ask you again: Where do you draw the line? Keyishian.

Here's a hint at where to draw the line - if you say things that would
make you an unfit lawyer, you're unfit to practice law. Circular, maybe,
but see above for perfect examples of free, protected speech that
nonetheless have consequences to them.
By stark contrast, you can't begin todefine "character and fitness," or to explain how the requirement canbe fairly imposed without raping and sodomizing the First Amendment.

Sure I can. And I did. Repeatedly. In several posts. In numerous
threads. (Why do you keep starting new ones anyway? Not only is it hard
to follow, it's ridiculous.)

You must acknowledge character and fitness is subjective. Once you do
that, we can agree that with anything subjective, there must be clear,
public, known factors which the decisionmaker is to consider, as well as
characteristics that are clearly known to be impermissible factors.
We have the right to live with the consequences, just as your incrediblyinane statement proves beyond the peradventure of a doubt that you areintellectually unfit to be a lawyer in any jurisdiction other than Havana orBeijing. But last time I checked, the government may not punish me formy speech, irrespective of whether it is as churlish as John Rocker's oras politically correct as the keynote address at any year's NOW conven-tion. Of course you can be punished for your speech, moron. Oh, excuse me for not being hyper-technical! And excuse YOU fordishonestly snipping the 90+% of my post that talks about speech onpublic issues of the day -- and not having the *character* to notice ourreaders of it.

Actually, Usenet etiquette is to quote only the relevant sections to which
the reply is directed. I'm not going to keep all of your post in my
reply, youre ramblings go on long enough without my help.
I suppose it is my error in presuming that a person who claims to bean assistant DA actually knows a little bit about the First Amendmentand therefore, that certain classes of speech obviously fall outside ofits protection.

Yes, I know this. I believe it was *MY* point.

While a Ted Kaldis may have to be led through this byhis snout, I shouldn't have to do that with a real lawyer.

No, you shouldn't. But apparently, you do. Why is that?

In article <3F016B95.EED7C293@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Larry wrote: In article <vfv9dfbbvgksba@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote: [snip]Take a look at the collected cases on the subject in ALR. I have read aslew of them. In NC the bar disciplined some attorneys who had a newspaperwhich regularly raked the politicians, including the judges, over the coals. Yes. Disparaging judges and other attorneys in public is generally an ethical violation. Where? Disparaging judges and other attorneys in public without causemay be an ethical violation, but any rule that prevents you from speakingthe truth is a prima facie First Amendment violation. [But then again, it isdoubtful that our friend Larry could find the 1Am on a bet -- much less,have any semblance of a clue as to what it actually means.]

So if I'm a lawyer, but I call myself a judge, there's nothing the bar
committee can do about it? If I'm a lowly associate but I call myself
senior partner, the bar can't discipline me for it? Moron.

I happen to agree with you in disagreeing with this rule, as it perpectuates the old-boy's-club even if there isn't one. But the idea is I can't stand on the courthouse steps and say I lost a case because of that schmuck judge or that scumbag opposing lawyer (which is alot like what Ken is doing with his posts, BTW) And you *have* filed a complaint against Professor Dershowitz?

No, because I have never seen or known of any judicial misconduct he has
engaged in. If I came to learn of any (and unsubstantiated hearsay
doesn't count) I would indeed report him - or anyone else.

because it lowers the image of the profession to laypeople - ROTFLMAO! How could I *POSSIBLY* do *THAT*?!?!?

Re-read your posts, your rants, and tell me if you want an honest answer
to this question.
Now, riddle me this, Larry: If Professor Dershowitz has seen corrup-tion in our courts, and Larry Smith has seen corruption in our courts,how is it that I could not *possibly* be the victim of corruption in ourcourts?

So because one lawyer saw corruption somewhere, and someone else saw
corrpution somewhere else, it must be EVERYWHERE, in EVERY case? I got
ripped off once having a suit altered by a department store. I bet
someone, somewhere else has had that same experience. Does that mean
every department store in the country rips off every men's clothing
customer of theirs?

Or conversely: if I state I have seen justice in our courts, and someone
else somewhere different says they have seen justice carried out inside a
courtroom, how could justice *possibly* not be present in your case as
well?

(Do you ssee your fallacy in generalizing?)
Larry, it appears that you have become so accustomed to lyingthat you have no qualms about it whatsoever. Quite a testamentto the character of members of the profession, eh?

Still waiting for you to document one lie of mine.
The problem with a perfectly vague standard is that it is *infinitely*elastic, and leaves day-to-day decisionmaking in the hands of the copon the beat. Coates. Papachristou. But then again, you are a Nazilawyer -- who has absolutely *no* problem with dictators, as long asthey let you keep on ginning....

You obviously know nothing about me, my practice of law, the NY bar, or,
for that matter, anything at all about being a lawyer since, well, you're
jsut not one.
Let's look at Matthew Hale. I have been to his website, and find hisviews *almost* as repugnant as I find yours. (I would sooner admit aMatthew Hale to the bar than I would you -- as I find that "character"requires some semblance of a spine.) But the purpose behind the Billof Rights and the First Amendment in particular is to protect unpopularindividuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at thehand of an intolerant society. McIntyre.

So again, if during my character and fitness application, I tell the
evaluator "I can't wait to be admitted because then I'll be able to steal
client' money!!" I should nonetheless be admitted? We all agree that
statement is constitutionally protected. But that's not the same as
saying you have the character and fitness necessary to practive law.

And Kenny, I've asked questions like that in multiple posts in multiple
threads. Please answer the question instead of dodgint it yet again.
With all due respect, your breathtaking lack of regard for the FirstAmendment and its purposes visits *more* shame on the professionthan letting a Matthew Hale be an advocate for his pet causes. Formy part, I agree with Justice Brandeis when he observes that silencecoerced by law is the argument of force in its worst form. But you,good Ba'athist that you are, think the Great Saddam knows best forus! Shame on you, Larry!

One thing you've made clear is that I think the bar examiner who rejected
you sure knows best for the people of Colorado!

If I said I hated the government, and I would sabatoge every case I had in order to create more work for the courts (not to mention a prediction that I'd embezzle from my clients at will), do you think I should be admitted? After all, to not admit me would be a decision based solely on my speech! I have more of a problem with bar examiners wrongfully deprivingpeople of the right to practice their chosen profession on a nebulousground like "character and fitness" than I do the bizarre hypotheticalyou posit here.

Wow, once again you avoid the question. Why is it bizarre. Your
position, as I understand it, is that any constitutionally-protected
speech cannot render someone unfit to practice law. I'm trying to test
your statement. Please answer the relevant, clear, question, or let me
know if you don't understand it. If someone says they will embezzle money
at every opportunity, do you think they should be admitted to the bar,
since their speech is constitutionally protected?
But shouldn't I have the right to challenge the decision, as a matterof right, in some semblance of a fair tribunal? You seem to think thatI should not.

Show me where I have said that, instead of wrongly putting words in my mouth.

In article <3F016C0D.259348D4@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Larry wrote: In article <3EFFE263.679A4B86@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: It wouldn't be so bad if they'd at least FOLLOW their proceduresand guidelines -- but Colorado went so far off the reservation that theentire judicial profession is embarrassed. Nothing the Colorado bar does or doesn't do embarasses me as a lawyer. Sure, it does. When Blowjob Bill lectures us on what the meaningof the word "is" is, and Saddam Hussein's professional calling isrevealed to the world, it speaks volumes about the character of theprofession.

If you're dumb enough to extrapolate Bill Clinton's conduct to all lawyers
- or even more bizarrely, Saddam Hussein's, who may be a (non-practicing)
lawyer in a nation with different government, judicial system, judicial
process, national beliefs and ideals, then I certainly do not care at all
what you think of me.

Isn't there one great attorney out there? Ever? Why not say every lawyer
is great and ethical because of that person? Or does the extrapolation
only help your argument when it's selectively done?
We all know that there are 'Nazi lawyers' out there like you -- whohave lost your sense of decency, fair play, and outrage along the way.When the Bar's SS came for the Jews, the Communists, and others,you would not 'speak up'. Consider the famous words of Niemoller.

First, I am Jewish, and take great offense to this and your other repeated
references to Nazism. Second, you make these ignorant, bigoted statements
knowing nothing about me. Can you tell me 1) my age, 2) the law school I
graduated from, 3) who I work for, 4) how long I have been an attorney, or
5) how those who have seen me practice would assess and evaluate me? I'd
think you would need to know at least a few of these in order to assess my
credentials.
Character, by definition, has at least a small subjective factor to it, don't you think? And if the Bar cannot administer its admission requirements in aresponsible manner, it should be deprived of the right to make thedetermination. With power comes responsibility.

SO who should make the bar admission decisions if not the bar? All Larry seems to care about is the right to send bills. If you read my posts, you'd know I was a prosecutor. Neverin my life sent a bill, collected a bill, logged billable hours, or kept track of the time I spent on individual cases. You're interested in protecting the profession against what couldvery well be a Cardinal Law-class scandal.

I have no interest in protecting the profession. See, its not the
conspiracy you think it is. There is alot I think is wrong with the
profession, but not admitting you as a member is not one of those flaws.
I'd be happy to discuss with you my proposals on improving the legal
profession, but that's another topic.

Larry wrote:
In article <3F016422.E97EA633@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Larry wrote: In article <3EFFD95A.1BAEC817@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > > This may be the most appallingly ignorant statement I have ever heard >come out of the mouth or from the keyboard of any lawyer this side of >the Soviet Union. Silly me! And here, I thought two semesters of Con >Law were *REQUIRED* for graduation from an ABA-accredited law >school. It's time I took this sorry bastard who calls himself a 'lawyer' to >school.... Actually, you thought wrong. Show me an ABA requirement that 2 semesters of Con Law are required for graduation from an ABA accredited law school. There is no such requirement. Period. Given your incredibly inane comments, there probably should be. So you admit you were mistaken? Your subject line makes the baseless allegation that I am a liar,

It's not baseless at all. You're the one claiming that I implicated the
NCBE in some sort of grand conspiracy, which is just flat out untrue.
What I am alleging is not dissimilar from that alleged against Cardinal
Law, and not without credible evidence; what happens in the bowels
of the NCBE is simply not relevant.
but you're the one who spouts the misinformation.

I merely said that I thought that two semesters of CL were required
by the ABA.
It's painfully obvious that you don't have a clue as to what IS in theBill of Rights [but then again, practicing in traffic court will tend todo that to you :(].... In NYC, the District Attorney's Office doesn't prosecute traffic offenses. Nice try.

I can't come up with another explanation for your ignorance....
(which is probably good, because if there were blanket requirements for graduation, you'd be including the ABA in ytour conspiracy theory, I'm sure). Obviously, you were AWOL during that portion of law school. What portion of law school? The ABA conspiracy portion?

The part where they talked about the First Amendment and the law
of indirect restraint.
What the *&@$^ are you talking about? Character and fitness is subjective, by definition. And you are quite obviously bereft of both. Next case! Not according to my state bar's committee on character and fitness, which found me to possess both. Nice try, again. But the personal attack sure helped bolster your case.....

Not a 'personal attack' but rather, an illustration. I'm making the
point that the term "character and fitness" is almost infinitely elastic.
If I am a bar examiner, and I say that you have are bereft of char-
acter and fitness, under your rule you are to be denied the right to
practice law. And you seem to have no problem with that....
If you say you'll assasinate every judge who presides over a case you lose, do you think you should be admitted? What if you say you'll embezzle client funds and violate the attorney-client privilege unless your clients sleep with you? If you declare all these things during the bar application process, do they nonetheleess have to admit you? So if I don't say any of those three things, I'm "in like Flynn?" You're more likely to be admitted than if you say these things. Please answer my question: If you say you'llassasinate every judge who presides over a case you lose, do you think you should be admitted? What if you say you'll embezzle client funds and violate the attorney-client privilege unless your clients sleep with you? If you declare all these things during the bar application process, do they nonetheleess have to admit you?

Let's see, now. If you believe the aforementioned but yet, lie to the
examiners (or you are never asked these questions in the first place),
you are fit to practice law, but if you are actually honest about it, you
won't be? [rolls eyes] Makes *perfect* sense to me, Larry.... :)

My position is that C&F examinations are unconstitutional unless
and until a reasonably specific standard is articulated against which
to measure conduct. Moreover, I find the "Minority Report" view
that we can punish a person for conduct we think he might commit
in the future, based solely on protected speech, is ludicrous. Legally
speaking, I don't think we have a choice. Yes, that applicant should
be admitted -- not because the concept itself is a desirable one, but
because the alternative is so constitutionally repugnant.
I'll ask you again: Where do you draw the line? Keyishian.
Here's a hint at where to draw the line - if you say things that would make you an unfit lawyer, you're unfit to practice law. Circular, maybe, but see above for perfect examples of free, protected speech that nonetheless have consequences to them.

And statements on the Internet exposing televangelists will make
you an unfit lawyer, because everyone knows that the highest and
best use of a lawyer is in evicting widows and orphans?
By stark contrast, you can't begin todefine "character and fitness," or to explain how the requirement canbe fairly imposed without raping and sodomizing the First Amendment. Sure I can. And I did. Repeatedly.

No, you didn't. You can't even draw a fuzzy line, to say nothing of
a bright line.
In several posts. In numerous threads. (Why do you keep starting new ones anyway? Not only is it hard to follow, it's ridiculous.) You must acknowledge character and fitness is subjective.

Of course, I acknowledge that. That was my point.
Once you do that, we can agree that with anything subjective, there must be clear, public, known factors which the decisionmaker is to consider, as well as characteristics that are clearly known to be impermissible factors.

So, we can agree that a standardless standard is impermissible? What
is your analysis of this statute, Counselor?

In addition, probable cause for denial of an application may be
established by any evidence which, in the judgment of the maj-
ority of the inquiry panel members, tends to show that the app-
licant is not mentally stable or morally or ethically fit to practice
law. In maing its probable cause determination, the inquiry
panel members are not bound by formal rules of evidence and
may consider all documents, statements, or matters brought to
its attention.

Because of the way the Colorado bar does its business, not beginning
the C&F process until an applicant passes the examinations, and would
be be eligible for admission almost immediately in the absence of such
an investigation, an applicant can be denied the right to practice for 3-6
months for any reason or no reason at all. Cf., Barry v. Barchi.
Can you tell me what the "standards" are? There is no Colorado case
law, because no decisions are ever reported.
> We have the right to live with the consequences, just as your incredibly >inane statement proves beyond the peradventure of a doubt that you are >intellectually unfit to be a lawyer in any jurisdiction other than Havana or >Beijing. But last time I checked, the government may not punish me for >my speech, irrespective of whether it is as churlish as John Rocker's or >as politically correct as the keynote address at any year's NOW conven- >tion. Of course you can be punished for your speech, moron. Oh, excuse me for not being hyper-technical! And excuse YOU fordishonestly snipping the 90+% of my post that talks about speech onpublic issues of the day -- and not having the *character* to notice ourreaders of it. Actually, Usenet etiquette is to quote only the relevant sections to which the reply is directed. I'm not going to keep all of your post in my reply, youre ramblings go on long enough without my help.

But you're distorting my statement under the rubric of brevity, which
*also* seems to be an integral part of Usenet etiquette....
I suppose it is my error in presuming that a person who claims to bean assistant DA actually knows a little bit about the First Amendmentand therefore, that certain classes of speech obviously fall outside ofits protection. Yes, I know this. I believe it was *MY* point.

And you didn't know that it was a red herring?

Speech which falls outside the ambit of the First Amendment could be
used against you -- not just in bar admission proceedings, but in criminal
court. Like, DUH!
While a Ted Kaldis may have to be led through this byhis snout, I shouldn't have to do that with a real lawyer. No, you shouldn't. But apparently, you do. Why is that?

Because you appear completely ignorant of a fundamental branch of
First Amendment law. Why is that?

Larry wrote:
In article <3F016B95.EED7C293@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Larry wrote: In article <vfv9dfbbvgksba@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote: [snip] >Take a look at the collected cases on the subject in ALR. I have read a >slew of them. In NC the bar disciplined some attorneys who had a newspaper >which regularly raked the politicians, including the judges, over the coals. Yes. Disparaging judges and other attorneys in public is generally an ethical violation. Where? Disparaging judges and other attorneys in public without causemay be an ethical violation, but any rule that prevents you from speakingthe truth is a prima facie First Amendment violation. [But then again, it isdoubtful that our friend Larry could find the 1Am on a bet -- much less,have any semblance of a clue as to what it actually means.] So if I'm a lawyer, but I call myself a judge, there's nothing the bar committee can do about it? If I'm a lowly associate but I call myself senior partner, the bar can't discipline me for it? Moron.

Did you even *read* what I wrote? I said that any rule that prevents
you from speaking THE TRUTH is a prima facie 1Am violation. DUH!
I happen to agree with you in disagreeing with this rule, as it perpectuates the old-boy's-club even if there isn't one. But the idea is I can't stand on the courthouse steps and say I lost a case because of that schmuck judge or that scumbag opposing lawyer (which is alot like what Ken is doing with his posts, BTW) And you *have* filed a complaint against Professor Dershowitz? No, because I have never seen or known of any judicial misconduct he has engaged in.

But he has made public statements disparaging to the legal profession
-- the very "crime" you are accusing me of here! And don't tell me that
you also missed the part in law school where they discussed hearsay!!!
If I came to learn of any (and unsubstantiated hearsay doesn't count) I would indeed report him - or anyone else.

Buy the book. Secure a copy at the local library. Borrow it from a
friend. It's hearsay when I tell you, but it's a Rule 801(d)(2) statement
when you read it for yourself. :)
because it lowers the image of the profession to laypeople - ROTFLMAO! How could I *POSSIBLY* do *THAT*?!?!? Re-read your posts, your rants, and tell me if you want an honest answer to this question.

Yes, I do. How *DO* you disparage a profession that is essentially
libel-proof? LOL!

"Q: What's 5,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start...."
Now, riddle me this, Larry: If Professor Dershowitz has seen corrup-tion in our courts, and Larry Smith has seen corruption in our courts,how is it that I could not *possibly* be the victim of corruption in ourcourts? So because one lawyer saw corruption somewhere, and someone else saw corrpution somewhere else, it must be EVERYWHERE, in EVERY case?

Are you really, truly, and honestly *THAT* obtuse, Larry?

If you pick out a black sock at random from a drawer, that is evidence
that there are black socks in that drawer. It is not evidence that there is
nothing but black socks in that drawer, nor is it persuasive evidence that
there are more black socks than not-black in that drawer.
I got ripped off once having a suit altered by a department store. I bet someone, somewhere else has had that same experience. Does that mean every department store in the country rips off every men's clothing customer of theirs? Or conversely: if I state I have seen justice in our courts, and someone else somewhere different says they have seen justice carried out inside a courtroom, how could justice *possibly* not be present in your case as well?

You look at the evidence in the case, as you would with respect to any
claim. You say that you got ripped off having a suit altered by a depart-
ment store. And I presume you could point to evidence to support your
claim. Gee! How complicated is that, Larry?

I claim that Colorado's state bar has gone totally 'off the reservation' in
my bar admission case, and that the federal courts are trying to cover for
the tortfeasors. I can present evidence of judges willfully refusing to follow
established case law, including hidebound Supreme Court decisions. And
if that isn't enough for you, I have to ask myself why.

Do you not know the law?
(Do you ssee your fallacy in generalizing?)

To suggest that there isn't some measure of corruption in our legal system
is to ignore the obvious. Just as there are bad priests out there, so also are
there bad judges. And judges usually 'turn bad' when they have an interest
in a case that comes before them that they are trying to protect. When they
don't have a horse in a given race, they can generally be counted upon to
render a fair judgment -- but if they are protecting their friends, all bets are
off.
Larry, it appears that you have become so accustomed to lyingthat you have no qualms about it whatsoever. Quite a testamentto the character of members of the profession, eh? Still waiting for you to document one lie of mine.

Your claim that I implicated the NCBE in what you allege is a grand
conspiracy. Find even one post where I have even mentioned them.
The problem with a perfectly vague standard is that it is *infinitely*elastic, and leaves day-to-day decisionmaking in the hands of the copon the beat. Coates. Papachristou. But then again, you are a Nazilawyer -- who has absolutely *no* problem with dictators, as long asthey let you keep on ginning.... You obviously know nothing about me,

That's true -- you could be an al-Qaeda sociopath from South Dakota.

But based on your comments here, I believe my analysis of you is a fair
one (contingent, OC, on your presumed candor).
my practice of law, the NY bar, or, for that matter, anything at all about being a lawyer since, well, you're jsut not one. Let's look at Matthew Hale. I have been to his website, and find hisviews *almost* as repugnant as I find yours. (I would sooner admit aMatthew Hale to the bar than I would you -- as I find that "character"requires some semblance of a spine.) But the purpose behind the Billof Rights and the First Amendment in particular is to protect unpopularindividuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at thehand of an intolerant society. McIntyre. So again, if during my character and fitness application, I tell the evaluator "I can't wait to be admitted because then I'll be able to steal client' money!!" I should nonetheless be admitted? We all agree that statement is constitutionally protected. But that's not the same as saying you have the character and fitness necessary to practive law.
And Kenny, I've asked questions like that in multiple posts in multiple threads. Please answer the question instead of dodgint it yet again.

Did you ever see the movie, "Minority Report?"

Do you deem it *just* to punish someone for something he has not
done? At the end of the day, this is what preemptive disbarment is.
While we can agree that it is probably not a great idea to permit the
the person in your hypo to practice law, you are in fact *punishing*
someone for PERFECTLY LEGAL CONDUCT.

What's more, we don't have a 'pre-crime machine' to tell us which
lawyer will violate the rules and which one will not.

While I'm not sanguine about letting a hundred Bill Clintons sidle up
to the Bar, the alternative is constitutionally repugnant. We can't be
afraid to be free, or expect the Great Saddam to tell us what we can
or cannot do.
With all due respect, your breathtaking lack of regard for the FirstAmendment and its purposes visits *more* shame on the professionthan letting a Matthew Hale be an advocate for his pet causes. Formy part, I agree with Justice Brandeis when he observes that silencecoerced by law is the argument of force in its worst form. But you,good Ba'athist that you are, think the Great Saddam knows best forus! Shame on you, Larry! One thing you've made clear is that I think the bar examiner who rejected you sure knows best for the people of Colorado!

I think you are malpracticing in New York every day. Your point?

It's nice to know that you are Jewish. As a point of fact,. Hale's lead
lawyer WAS Jewish [I don't know the status of the case, as Hale has
gotten himself into some fairly hot water] -- but at least, he had enough
common sense under his beanie to understand what Niemoller learned
to his chagrin: When we protect the rights of even those whose views
we absolutely detest, we are ultimately protecting our own. When they
came for me, you cheered them on. But what happens when they come
for you?
If I said I hated the government, and I would sabatoge every case I had in order to create more work for the courts (not to mention a prediction that I'd embezzle from my clients at will), do you think I should be admitted? After all, to not admit me would be a decision based solely on my speech! I have more of a problem with bar examiners wrongfully deprivingpeople of the right to practice their chosen profession on a nebulousground like "character and fitness" than I do the bizarre hypotheticalyou posit here. Wow, once again you avoid the question. Why is it bizarre. Your position, as I understand it, is that any constitutionally-protected speech cannot render someone unfit to practice law. I'm trying to test your statement. Please answer the relevant, clear, question, or let me know if you don't understand it. If someone says they will embezzle money at every opportunity, do you think they should be admitted to the bar, since their speech is constitutionally protected?

In the immortal words of Marv "wearing a panties and garter without
the rug on, visibly aroused" Albert: "YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!"

Punishing someone for perfectly legal conduct -- and convicting them
for something we only think they will do in the future -- is constitutionally
repugnant.
But shouldn't I have the right to challenge the decision, as a matterof right, in some semblance of a fair tribunal? You seem to think thatI should not. Show me where I have said that, instead of wrongly putting words in my mouth.

That's what this case is all about, Larry: the question of whether the
Colorado bar admission procedure meets constitutional minima.

Larry wrote:
In article <3F018C6A.67CE79B2@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:

[snip]
You should rather learn from them, for they succeeded where you failed. Tell me how I should learn from convicted felon cocaine dealerCynthia Ciancio, Ted. I'm sure that I could learn how to have afather who was a member of the Bar and the Democratic Partywho could fix it so that the felony on my record would simply goaway, right? So this is where it comes from! A-ha! You read in the newspaper about one lawyer who uses cocaine,

No, I read about a convicted felon and cocaine dealer who was
deemed to have the requisite character and fitness to be admitted
to the bar in Colorado.
so you assume we all do. Now I get it! After all, it's not reasonable to think there are bad apples in every profession, right?

Including judges, priests, and bar examiners, right? I assume that
there are a lot of bad apples in every profession -- including you, to
be blunt. There are two kinds of bad apples: those who commit the
crimes, and those who countenance them. You seem to fall into the
latter category....
No, musch more logical is the supposition that we're all members of a coke-snortin', back-patting, conspiratorial brotherhood who sits around and has ewekly meetings on how to keep Ken out.

If you can explain how it is that a candidate with a 25-year record
of law-abiding citizenship, who has been married for almost as long
to the same person, and has done nothing to objectively deserve to
be denied admission -- but who does not have a father in 'the Club'
-- is properly denied admission, while a convicted felon and cocaine
dealer with political connections should be granted a license....

I guess the words "arbitrary and capricious" really *aren't* in your
vocabulary, are they, Larry?
On a trivial point? Not surprising, since I didn't bother to look it upbecause it was a trivial point. Besides, if Larry's profound ignoranceof First Amendment law is the result of the lousy education he got atan ABA-accredited law school, that rule needs to be changed in anyevent. First amendment law is not only not a required law school course, it's not tested on the majority of state bar exams. Whether or not that's the way it hould be is a different issue.

You mean, it's not in the MBE? Silly me, I could have sworn that I
studied it in my bar exam prep. Now, why did I waste all that time?
Obviously, it has been so degraded that there's nothing left of it in any
event....

"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3EFFD95A.1BAEC817@concentric.net... Who'd a thunk it possible? A *LAWYER,* making Hirsch look like Clarence Darrow by comparison?! Larry, please return your bar card at once! Rule 1.1!!!

Although you obviously didn't intend it as a compliment to me, it contains a
kernel of truth, Ken.
I attended an excellent law school, passed the bar, and had a ten year
success record
including published civil liberties and fathers' rights victories
which I assert makes "Hirsch" (me) higher up the ladder toward "Clarence
Darrrow"
than a very substantial percentage of currently practicing bar members,
certainly higher
than the crop of nattering poseurs on these newsgroups who claim current bar
membership.

I didn't "return my bar card" when I recognized the corruption and venality
of the Arizona Bar. I PUBLICLY BURNED IT, and went on to do useful
litigation work for Pro-Se's
from a position protected from bar retaliation.

Your exposition of the First Amendment was interesting.

Bob Hirschfeld, JD
http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Assistance for Self Representation in Federal Court :

Are you headed for a Federal District Court, United States Court of
Appeals, or even that rarest of opportunities, a Petition for Certiorari to
the
United States Supreme Court? A well known former civil rights/father's
rights attorney is available to draft your briefs and to consult with you on
strategy. He is substantially more affordable than currently practicing
attorneys.
See:
http://www.nolawyer.com

--------------------------------------

Highly Informative Video lectures:

Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80 postpaid
Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80 postpaid
Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 postpaid
Video #4 Preparing for Trial
$23.80 postpaid
Video #5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 postpaid

All five for $99.00 postpaid

http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

In article <be5onl$bk0$1@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>, "Nolawyer"
<noabogado@yahoo.com> wrote:I didn't "return my bar card" when I recognized the corruption and venalityof the Arizona Bar. I PUBLICLY BURNED IT, and went on to do usefullitigation work for Pro-Se'sfrom a position protected from bar retaliation.

You didn't return or burn your bar card. If you did, you could call the
bar card replacement hotline and have a new one sent to you whenever you
wanted. But you can't, can you? I mean, returning to active membership
in the bar is not within your sole control, is it?

Nolawyer wrote:
"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3EFFD95A.1BAEC817@concentric.net... Who'd a thunk it possible? A *LAWYER,* making Hirsch look like Clarence Darrow by comparison?! Larry, please return your bar card at once! Rule 1.1!!! Although you obviously didn't intend it as a compliment to me, it contains a kernel of truth, Ken. I attended an excellent law school, passed the bar, and had a ten year success record including published civil liberties and fathers' rights victories

With all due respect, my friend, I am as sympathetic to your
claim that the AZ bar was "out to get you" with ulterior motives
as any man on the planet -- because I'VE BEEN THERE, and can
report at first hand on how that particular class of slime known
as bar committees work. And you will note that I was able to
persuade Larry, Esk, and others that Colorado's bar admission
process is a realm devoid of procedural due process (although
they still persist in defending constitutionally repugnant practices
such as the "look you in the eye" standard for character and fit-
ness to practice law).

That having been said, having passed the bar and attended what
was a second-tier law school, and having amassed knowledge of
civil rights law, I am in a position to fairly evaluate your work. On
that basis, I will say that the corpus of your work is unimpressive
at best.

I don't put a lot of stock in the facts found in your bar-related
cases, largely because I know that judges tend to bastardize the
law and sodomize the facts when they have the need (and yes, I
can prove it). But I can say that your claim that the judge didn't
have jurisdiction to levy a $20,000 fine has the dubious virtue of
never having been tried -- for a reason. Not good.
I see two reported AZ cases where you are attorney of record
that didn't involve accusations of malfeasance on your part, and
you batted .500. I also see one Ninth Circuit case in which you
won a remand, which doesn't even come close to impacting civil
liberties. And your sole contribution to Arizona law is a rule that
a father may invoke the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer
questions. [My computer reporting service has a blind spot wrt
reported AZ district court decisions, so I am agnostic as to your
record in that venue.] Hardly Sarah Weddington material....

I note your analysis of my case, and find that you missed about
every viable angle I had. The Carey-based claims and resort to
state court remedies never dawned on either you or your com-
puter program as being viable approaches. Lawyering requires
creativity, and I'm not sure that people would be well-served by
your "help." Some of what Larry's written here is embarrassing
to the profession, but he has the excuse of not practicing in that
area of the law. You hold yourself out as being knowledgeable
with respect to civil rights matters, and cannot invoke his excuse.

Based on that record, I couldn't recommend your services to
anyone.
which I assert makes "Hirsch" (me) higher up the ladder toward "Clarence Darrrow" than a very substantial percentage of currently practicing bar members, certainly higher than the crop of nattering poseurs on these newsgroups who claim current bar membership.

I find that Larry Smith knows his civil rights law, while young Larry
seems to have slid through Con Law class almost totally unaffected.
Esk and Wes appear capable of discussing these matters at a fairly
high level, although I was taken aback by Wes' assertion that Matt
Hale didn't deserve bar admission on account of his dangerous pol-
itical views, and Esk's cheerleading with respect to Larry's argument
for a "look 'em in the eye" standard of character and fitness. They,
given their experience at bar, really should know better.
Then again, I don't know whether they believe what they're saying,
or that they are simply trying to be a "tough room." Ideas are like
diamonds, in the sense that you have to slice 'em, dice 'em, and put
'em under extreme pressure to make them sparkle. It wouldn't sur-
prise me in the least for Larry to come out and admit that that was
his intention. And it wouldn't offend me for people to throw every-
thing they can think of at my theory of law. Better for me to have
thought about my opponent's strongest arguments beforehand than
to be caught unawares.
I didn't "return my bar card" when I recognized the corruption and venality of the Arizona Bar. I PUBLICLY BURNED IT, and went on to do useful litigation work for Pro-Se's from a position protected from bar retaliation.

I.e., Mexico. Why not Australia, while you're at it? At least, they
[almost] speak the same language, and the weather's so much better.... :)
Your exposition of the First Amendment was interesting.

What I find most remarkable is that our country has spent some
$100,000,000,000 and the blood of over a thousand of our gallant
men and women to secure for the good citizens of Iraq what our
lawyer friends seem to believe I have no right to as an American
citizen: the right to speak candidly on issues of the day, free from
fear of government harassment and/or retaliation.

"Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preser-
vation of society."
-- Preamble, Colorado RPC

Lawyers are supposed to be defending cardinal principles of law,
but at the end of the day, they behave no better than Cardinal Law.
That our friends aren't incensed by the shoddy treatment I received
at the hands of Colorado's Supreme Court is even more shocking
than the shoddy treatment itself.

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> writes:
And you will note that I was able topersuade Larry, Esk, and others that Colorado's bar admissionprocess is a realm devoid of procedural due process...

Doesn't the judicial branch get to decide what "due process" means? In
other words, whatever the Colorado bar does, with the approval of the
Colorado Supreme Court, *is* by definition "due process", unless
overruled by a higher court.
--
Rahul

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> writes:And you will note that I was able topersuade Larry, Esk, and others that Colorado's bar admissionprocess is a realm devoid of procedural due process... Doesn't the judicial branch get to decide what "due process" means? In other words, whatever the Colorado bar does, with the approval of the Colorado Supreme Court, *is* by definition "due process", unless overruled by a higher court.

Not when the "process" due has already been defined by
those courts which the Colorado Supreme Court must obey.
I've already cited just some of the binding case law defining
what an applicant for professional licensure has the right to
expect, and everyone appears in agreement that I didn't get
the minimum procedural process due.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 15:30:21 +0000 (UTC),
c.c.eiftj@NolawyerXX.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> writes:And you will note that I was able topersuade Larry, Esk, and others that Colorado's bar admissionprocess is a realm devoid of procedural due process...Doesn't the judicial branch get to decide what "due process" means? Inother words, whatever the Colorado bar does, with the approval of theColorado Supreme Court, *is* by definition "due process", unlessoverruled by a higher court.

Ah, your'e such a philosopher, Rahul. A pragmatic, at that! If a
tree falls in the woods, and there's no one ther to hear it, does it
make a noise? If you call a dog's tail a "leg," how many legs does it
have? If I spit in your drink but you don't find out about it, have I
wronged you? If it looks and feels and tastes like wine, how could it
be the blood of Christ? If it's unconstitutional, but no court will
say so . . .

- Jon Beaver

none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message news:<none-0507030214570001@192.168.2.4>... In article <be5onl$bk0$1@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>, "Nolawyer" <noabogado@yahoo.com> wrote:I didn't "return my bar card" when I recognized the corruption and venalityof the Arizona Bar. I PUBLICLY BURNED IT, and went on to do usefullitigation work for Pro-Se'sfrom a position protected from bar retaliation. You didn't return or burn your bar card.

Wrong. See: http://www.nolawyer.com/badjudge/independ.html

The burning object in my hand, in the photo, was indeed
my then-current bar card.

Bob Hirschfeld, JD
http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html
nolawyer@nolawyer.com
PO Box 696, Lukeville AZ 85341

Highly Informative Video lectures:

Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80
Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80
Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80
Video #4 Preparing for Trial $23.80
Video #5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80

http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

Highly Informative Video lectures:

Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80
Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80
Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80
Video #4 Preparing for Trial $23.80
Video #5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80

http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

Nolawyer wrote:
Highly Informative Video lectures: Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80 Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80 Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 Video #4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 Video #5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that you are sufficiently
qualified to be a competent instructor on these matters. Nothing
personal, but I'd rather buy instruction videos from someone who
is a recognized expert in the field -- like Dershowitz, with respect
to seeking cert in the Supreme Court.

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<3F083229.46547824@concentric.net>... Nolawyer wrote: Highly Informative Video lectures: Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80 Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80 Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 Video #4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 Video #5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that you are sufficiently qualified to be a competent instructor on these matters.

That's your own expert opinion, eh, Ken? You've never viewed
any of my videotaped presentations?
Nothing personal, but I'd rather buy instruction videos from someone who is a recognized expert in the field -- like Dershowitz, with respect to seeking cert in the Supreme Court.

If you can find such a Derashowitz video for sale, let me know, and I'll
buy one, too. Meanwhile, the five public presentations I've made
at successive annual conventions of the National Congress for
Fathers and Children, and my 11 US Supreme Court petitions and
many State and Federal Appeals, qualify me to present practical
education to real pro se litigants.

http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

"Bob Hirschfeld, JD" wrote:
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<3F083229.46547824@concentric.net>... Nolawyer wrote: Highly Informative Video lectures: Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80 Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80 Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 Video #4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 Video #5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that you are sufficiently qualified to be a competent instructor on these matters. That's your own expert opinion, eh, Ken?

I would say that that is my informed opinion -- based on statements
you have made in these NGs and a review of your history in appellate
court. Moreover, you've never had a petition granted by SCOTUS,
and I have yet to see any indication that you are particularly qualified
to convey anything more than the basics on any topic.

It may well be that I haven't seen you at your best, but the argument
that you were not subject to the jurisdiction of the AZ bar has to rank
right up there with the all-time tax-protestor crackpot classics. :)
You've never viewed any of my videotaped presentations?

I don't have to to conclude that you don't know all that much more
about writing an effective petition for cert than I do -- and I certainly
don't consider myself competent to put together such a video.
Nothing personal, but I'd rather buy instruction videos from someone who is a recognized expert in the field -- like Dershowitz, with respect to seeking cert in the Supreme Court. If you can find such a Derashowitz video for sale, let me know, and I'll buy one, too. Meanwhile, the five public presentations I've made at successive annual conventions of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, and my 11 US Supreme Court petitions and many State and Federal Appeals, qualify me to present practical education to real pro se litigants.

You're right on one count: I guess anything's better than nothing, eh?

Larry wrote:
In article <20030629173811.21428.00001362@mb-m05.aol.com>, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Ok, everybody... i am new to the news group, and have been reading thisColorado Board thread for darn near a week. It would seem to me that someone bynow would have a basic, straightforward affirmation or rebuttal to what soundslike the core of the Ken Smith case.....Does a Bar Applicant HAVE the First Amendment rights to say what he wants/needsto say..... evidently in this case to maintain a website... or does he NOT ?? Everyone has rights under the first amendment. That's not the issue here. bar associations also have duties to investigate their members and potential members to ensure they have the character, fitness, and ethical qualities necessary to be a lawyer. If something you say or write causes them to question your fitness to practice law, they can deny you admission to the bar, following their own procedures and guidelines. You may or may not be able to appeal, you may or may not have judicial recourse, but its not a first amendment issue. No one is trying to shut down a web site or limit your speech.

If the state, or a state agency, is in fact questioning your ability to practice law
based on your opinions, or denying a permit to do so based on those opinions then
that is exactly what it is doing.
If he DOES ---and we can all agree he does--- then what the Colorado group hasdone to him is horrifying and needs to be exposed on 60 Minutes... tonight.If he DOES NOT --- and we can all agree he does not--- then what does this meanto not only the *rest* of the people in our law schools, but how far does thatchilling effect extend ?? Where IS the line for when free speech is no longerfree ?? The first amendment doesn't say you have the right to free speech and to also be free from any consequences of that speech. It says you have the right to free speech and the right to live with the consequences.

It also says the state may not penalize you because of your speech or opinions. To
do so violates the 1st Amendment.

--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

In article <3F08BFBE.87137A95@paul.washington.dc.us>, Paul Robinson
<postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote:
Larry wrote: The first amendment doesn't say you have the right to free speech and to also be free from any consequences of that speech. It says you have the right to free speech and the right to live with the consequences.It also says the state may not penalize you because of your speech or
opinions. Todo so violates the 1st Amendment.

Right, but it doesn't say you can say anything you want and not have
consequences for it.

In article <46750fac.0307052030.110a326c@posting.google.com>,
nolawyer@primenet.com (Bob Hirschfeld, JD) wrote:
none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote in message
news:<none-0507030214570001@192.168.2.4>... In article <be5onl$bk0$1@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net>, "Nolawyer" <noabogado@yahoo.com> wrote:I didn't "return my bar card" when I recognized the corruption and venalityof the Arizona Bar. I PUBLICLY BURNED IT, and went on to do usefullitigation work for Pro-Se'sfrom a position protected from bar retaliation. You didn't return or burn your bar card.Wrong. See: http://www.nolawyer.com/badjudge/independ.htmlThe burning object in my hand, in the photo, was indeedmy then-current bar card.

First, even you should know that this was at most a symbolic act. I could
burn my "bar card" and it wouldn't affect my standing as a member of the
bar one bit.

Second, I notcie you snipped the last three sentences of my post, so I
will post it again for your response:

In article <none-0507030214570001@192.168.2.4>, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:You didn't return or burn your bar card. If you did, you could call thebar card replacement hotline and have a new one sent to you whenever youwanted. But you can't, can you? I mean, returning to active membershipin the bar is not within your sole control, is it?

Ken Smith wrote:
"Bob Hirschfeld, JD" wrote: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<3F083229.46547824@concentric.net>... Nolawyer wrote: > Highly Informative Video lectures: > > Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80 > Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80 > Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 > Video #4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 > Video #5 The Buck Stops Here: US Supreme Court $23.80 > > http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html Unfortunately, you haven't demonstrated that you are sufficiently qualified to be a competent instructor on these matters. That's your own expert opinion, eh, Ken? I would say that that is my informed opinion -- based on statements you have made in these NGs and a review of your history in appellate court.

I guess I'll have to emend that statement, Hirsch. Judging by the rants
of Jonny B. and Leisure-Suit Larry, the level of competence required of
a lawyer is roughly on par with that of a handwriting expert. IOW, you
could do worse, but you'd really have to try....

In article <3F09B5EC.DAC619FF@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: You weren't deprived of life, liberty or property. You may have been denied equal protection of the law, though. I can't tell because you only allude to facts. Is there a published opinion? Since there hasn't been a trial yet, there aren't any developed facts-- only admissions during federal proceedings.

Do you believe published opinions only come after trials?

If so, learn some civil procedure. If not, answer the question.

Larry wrote:

[no case law -- all bull****]

Larry wrote:

[no case law -- all bull****]

In article <3F0ABD00.A2A2C12@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: Take Larry's argument that I consented to a psych eval. The answeris that I only consented to those psych evals which comport with law.

No, you just revoked your consent when an obligation was imposed on you of
which you objected.
I am entitled to insist that there be probable cause for conducting sucha search, that the mental fitness standard be identified to constitutionaltolerances, and that I be able to challenge the bona fides of the searchbefore it is conducted.

So you say. The courts, and the rest of us on usenet, diasagree.
Similarly, no one seems willing to take on *my* argument that if thebar can use my "protected speech" against me, that I am not free tospeak my mind on public issues without fear of government reprisal.

We've all taken it on. You dismiss us out of hand.
Can anyone who wants to be a lawyer at somepoint in the future speak only in a restrained manner, for fear that hemay be called to account for his speech?

I happen to think one should be called to account for their speech. In
other words, held responsible for what they say and made to understand
there are consequences for speech. I'm not saying that decisions should
be made on political or first amendment grounds, but a job applicant who
tells the interviewer that if hired, they'd show up late to work every day
SHOULD expect they won't get the job. Common sense.

Larry Wrote...
I happen to think one should be called to account for their speech. Inother words, held responsible for what they say and made to understandthere are consequences for speech. I'm not saying that decisions shouldbe made on political or first amendment grounds, but a job applicant whotells the interviewer that if hired, they'd show up late to work every daySHOULD expect they won't get the job. Common sense.

Common sense or no, this hypo is as far away from the case at hand as you can
get --- without proclaiming you're Jesus and wearing a loincloth.

I realize that i am in Legal Kindergarten compaired to the rest of you, so
*please* help me understand why there looks to be an horrible double standard
here, and what needs to be done to SOLVE it.

That having been said, lets try to stick to Ken's basic set of facts, which are
spilled over about 150 posts in the last month. There is no question that he
passed all the objective standard necessary, and the problem rests in
"character" If the decision to block him WAS based on political, journalistic
or first amendment grounds, ie the internet expose of a televangelist, as it
appears to be the case here, then what?? I cant imagine a *lawyer* being held
drug over the coals for doing the same thing... they would probably get a job
with Fox News. So why is a bar applicant held to such a stricter standard ??

Further, how far backwards does your speech "haunt" you ?? Can Eminem or anyone
from the old 2 Live Crew ever *hope* to one day be in the profession? If i
thought that Jimmy Carter was a rat bastard in my third grade newspaper, would
i be later be facing a "character and fitness" challenge too ?

You can take Ken's bombastic and often insulting prose however you want, but If
you are facing a psych exam that has only has doctors available from the bar's
"stable", not independent ones, doesnt that just scream the absence of
"impartiality" ?? After all, if the applicant is effectively disbarred for the
"suspicion" of mental instablility, why can a *lawyer* be taking prosac and not
automatically be disbarred ??

Finally, if a CONVICTED FELON can be a lawyer, why cant someone who didnt break
the law ?? I am having trouble with the standard being "yes because we like
you" or "no because we say so"... without any legal justification for it.

So Larry, i guess what i am asking here is, if Ken were YOUR client, how would
you advise him to proceed ??

Thank you in advance for considering my inquiries

.. Chase

In article <20030708225207.18524.00000023@mb-m20.aol.com>,
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Larry Wrote...I happen to think one should be called to account for their speech. Inother words, held responsible for what they say and made to understandthere are consequences for speech. I'm not saying that decisions shouldbe made on political or first amendment grounds, but a job applicant whotells the interviewer that if hired, they'd show up late to work every daySHOULD expect they won't get the job. Common sense.Common sense or no, this hypo is as far away from the case at hand as you canget --- without proclaiming you're Jesus and wearing a loincloth.I realize that i am in Legal Kindergarten compaired to the rest of you, so*please* help me understand why there looks to be an horrible double standardhere, and what needs to be done to SOLVE it.

I don't understand the double standard you're referring to.

The basic difference is that Ken thinks to deem any constitutionally
protected speech as a sign of unfitness is a first amendment violation.
Pretty much everyone else in this thread disagrees.

My hypo, which I posed awhile back, would be if a bar applicant tells the
bar committee they intend to embezzle client funds or sleep with clients,
or assassinate judges who rule against them. I believe this is a sign
that the applicant is unfit to practice law - Ken disagrees.

I drew an analogy to a non-legal setting by asking about a job applicant
for a public sector job. If the person tells their interviewer that they
plan on being lazy, stealing office supplies and taking days off without
calling the boss, I think we all agree that person should not be hired.
Sure, his speech is constitutionally protected. And the interviewer,
working for a civil service agency, is "the government." So the
government is making decisions based on the job applicant's
constitutionally protected speech. But only Ken thinks the person should
be hired for the job despite their comments.That having been said, lets try to stick to Ken's basic set of facts, which arespilled over about 150 posts in the last month. There is no question that hepassed all the objective standard necessary, and the problem rests in"character" If the decision to block him WAS based on political, journalisticor first amendment grounds, ie the internet expose of a televangelist, as itappears to be the case here, then what?? I cant imagine a *lawyer* being helddrug over the coals for doing the same thing... they would probably get a jobwith Fox News. So why is a bar applicant held to such a stricter standard ??

Someone with a law license (or medical license, or tenure, or whatever)
does have a greater interest and more legal rights in keeping whatever it
is than someone has in getting that "thing" in the first place. The
theory, detailed in such cases as Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Board of
Regents, is that due process is required to take away something which you
have a property or liberty interest in. And a license is "property" so
you're entitled to a broad set of protections if the government tries to
take it away from you. Take driver's licenses. Theoretically, a state
could outlaw driving, and not grant anyone licenses. If you don't have a
license, you can't complain that you can't get one. But if you already
have one, and your state issues them, the if the state is taking it away
from you, you are losing some of your property. I hope this does a decent
job of answering your question.
Further, how far backwards does your speech "haunt" you ?? Can Eminem or anyonefrom the old 2 Live Crew ever *hope* to one day be in the profession? If ithought that Jimmy Carter was a rat bastard in my third grade newspaper, wouldi be later be facing a "character and fitness" challenge too ?

It depends on what your state's bar committee looks at. Most of this is
covered by questions in the application materials, and by the rules and
regulations which govern bar admission.
You can take Ken's bombastic and often insulting prose however you want, but Ifyou are facing a psych exam that has only has doctors available from the bar's"stable", not independent ones, doesnt that just scream the absence of"impartiality" ??

To play devil's advocate, who said impartiality is required? I bet there
are people who get rejected without a psych exam (convicted felons, for
example, despite what Ken says), so the bar committee holding off making a
decision pending psych results isn't the worst scenario.

And to switch sides and be naive for a minute, why does "impartiality"
matter? Maybe the shrink is just known and trusted and respedcted by the
bar. They ordered a psych exam, ostensibly, to gain the opinion of an
expert. They're not necessarily looking for an opinion that will let them
reject the bar applicant - they could do that without the psych exam. Nor
are they looking for a shrink who will give a favorable opinion - they
could admit the applicant without a psych exam. All they're looking for
is more information on which to base their opinion. So why not let the
applicant pick from a short list of trusted, reputable doctors?

After all, if the applicant is effectively disbarred for the"suspicion" of mental instablility, why can a *lawyer* be taking prosac and notautomatically be disbarred ??

It's not blanket mental instability that's the issue, though I'm sure a
declaration of mental insanity would be a disqualification. The issue is
whether the person is fit to practice law, not mentally fit. Related
concepts, but different.
Finally, if a CONVICTED FELON can be a lawyer, why cant someone who didnt breakthe law ?? I am having trouble with the standard being "yes because we likeyou" or "no because we say so"... without any legal justification for it.

It's factual. If the felony was one of violence, or of deceit/theft, I
would think you'd have a hard time being admitted. But it also depends on
the amount of time that has passed, whether you've accepted responsibility
for it, what the crime was, what the facts and circumstances were, and a
host of similar issues.

It's a felony for me to go into my neighbor's mailbox and take out his
junk mail. It's not a felony for me to punch someone in the face and
break their noe and fracture their eye socket. Yet I'd argue the latter
is a greater wrong and a greater sign of unfitness than the former.
So Larry, i guess what i am asking here is, if Ken were YOUR client, how wouldyou advise him to proceed ??

Well, I would want to know WHY he didn't want to take the psych exam.
This will be a pyrric victory at most for him. He already gave up trying
to get admitted, and he now is tellign us he's only suing for money
damages for the violation of his rights. So if he would rather have been
a lawyer, I would probably advise him to have undergone the exam (assuming
I had more information - the scope of the exam, the duration, etc. and
that these were all reasonable). If he did have some sort of mental
defect that brought the ADA into play, I would have discussed that with
the bar examiners before outright refusing the exam, to see if some
accomodation or compromise could be reached.

I wouldn't tell him to refuse the exam outright, and least not at first.
I can't help but think he shot himself in the foot and limited his
options.
Thank you in advance for considering my inquiries

No problem - glad to answer questions and offer opinions. Thank you for
being civil and cordial. ;)

solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) writes:
I realize that i am in Legal Kindergarten compaired to the rest of you, so*please* help me understand why there looks to be an horrible double standardhere, and what needs to be done to SOLVE it.

Double standards per se are not unconstitutional, as I understand it.
--
Rahul

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) writes:I realize that i am in Legal Kindergarten compaired to the rest of you, so*please* help me understand why there looks to be an horrible double standardhere, and what needs to be done to SOLVE it. Double standards per se are not unconstitutional, as I understand it.

.....but when they burden a fundamental right, isn't strict scrutiny applied?

In article <3F0DAADF.F9504525@worldnet.att.net>, "Theodore says...
Here we are. In order for one to get one's heart right with God and become aChristian, one must confess that he is a sinner. This seems to be somethingthat Ken is quite unable to do.

So instead of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, it's salvation by
the work of admitting fault.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:i7orgvsrqqbf310an5po6vjva6ae34ugl5@4ax.com...
Speech is also conduct and may also be evidence. You can't deny bar admission because someone says "I am God," but you can deny him admission for THINKING he is God. He can insist that you are doing it because he "said" it all he wants.

THINKING is "conduct" ??