A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far, far away, I asked a small question.

Does a Bar Applicant have the First Amendment rights to say what he wants/needs
to say, evidently in this case to maintain a website, or does he NOT ??


Maybe I was initially too broad. Maybe I need to go to law school to learn how
to ask questions, and if that is true, I greatly apologize for not precisely
enough articulating my inquiry. While I am a degreed and licensed professional
myself -- one state and one federal license--- that does not follow that I have
the necessary verbal sharpness needed when discussing matters in the arena of
legal gladiatiors.

Nevertheless, I have learned some things here, and am grateful for that. I have
learned that the 1AM protections are not absolute over *all* speech. While they
may cover 97% out of 100, there are limits and they do not include words that:
either injure, threaten or presents "clear and present dangers"/the inducement
to partake in unlawful action. While, those are certainly things to avoid, they
also do not seem to fit the parameters of this case.

All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer and an
applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, does the
applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his "approved"
counterpart?

If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected ---
that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq War for
example, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no".

Yes, they can both say the same thing freely, or No, they are in different
classes of "protected" speech. These men, in terms of 1AM -- not their ability
to perform the "service" of representation--- are either equals... or they are
not.

I do NOT wish to sound out of tune here either. Gentlemen, i commend you all
for your efforts, knowledge and legal considerations, but somewhere in the
nuances of the details, I feel the simple issue --- they are equals or they are
not --- has blown over my head. I need to have that starting point settled
before i can *even* wonder how in the heck GOD and Ted's concerns over Ken
Smith's immortal soul fit into this thread.

So, there I am. Pulled over at the rest area on the information super highway,
having my decaffinated tea, wondering how the Fog will make its next move, and
reading thru the weekends worth of new posts.... and I see something that jumps
out at me. Now, I might be wrong here, there is a *small* context issue that
may need to be addressed, but i THINK I SEE AN ANSWER when....
Larry wrote:

"I've told you from day one that bar applicants and bar members ARE in
different categories, and in support I cited two cases that *you* first
mentioned - Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Bd. of Regents. A bar applicant
has no property interest in obtaining a law license, but a bar member has a
property interest if the state tries to ttake away HIS bar license."

Furthermore, Larry Wrote:

"Yes. His speech is totally and completely protected (and reprehensible). If
he wants to stand on a soapbox, spout off his views, then return home at night,
no one can stop him. But if he wants a privilege offered by the state, and his
speech bears upon his capacity in that regard, then it would be ridiculous,
negligent, and just plain stupid for it not to be taken into consideration."

I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" but it is
still CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (the lawyer and
applicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.


Do I have this right ???

.. Have a GREAT day !!!
.. Chase

solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far, far away, I asked a small question.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 ??Maybe I was initially too broad. Maybe I need to go to law school to learn howto ask questions, and if that is true, I greatly apologize for not preciselyenough articulating my inquiry. While I am a degreed and licensed professionalmyself -- one state and one federal license--- that does not follow that I havethe necessary verbal sharpness needed when discussing matters in the arena oflegal gladiatiors.Nevertheless, I have learned some things here, and am grateful for that. I havelearned that the 1AM protections are not absolute over *all* speech. While theymay cover 97% out of 100, there are limits and they do not include words that:either injure, threaten or presents "clear and present dangers"/the inducementto partake in unlawful action. While, those are certainly things to avoid, theyalso do not seem to fit the parameters of this case.All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer and anapplicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, does theapplicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his "approved"counterpart?If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected ---that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq War forexample, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no".Yes, they can both say the same thing freely, or No, they are in differentclasses of "protected" speech. These men, in terms of 1AM -- not their abilityto perform the "service" of representation--- are either equals... or they arenot.I do NOT wish to sound out of tune here either. Gentlemen, i commend you allfor your efforts, knowledge and legal considerations, but somewhere in thenuances of the details, I feel the simple issue --- they are equals or they arenot --- has blown over my head. I need to have that starting point settledbefore i can *even* wonder how in the heck GOD and Ted's concerns over KenSmith's immortal soul fit into this thread.So, there I am. Pulled over at the rest area on the information super highway,having my decaffinated tea, wondering how the Fog will make its next move, andreading thru the weekends worth of new posts.... and I see something that jumpsout at me. Now, I might be wrong here, there is a *small* context issue thatmay need to be addressed, but i THINK I SEE AN ANSWER when....Larry wrote:"I've told you from day one that bar applicants and bar members ARE indifferent categories, and in support I cited two cases that *you* firstmentioned - Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Bd. of Regents. A bar applicanthas no property interest in obtaining a law license, but a bar member has aproperty interest if the state tries to ttake away HIS bar license."Furthermore, Larry Wrote:"Yes. His speech is totally and completely protected (and reprehensible). Ifhe wants to stand on a soapbox, spout off his views, then return home at night,no one can stop him. But if he wants a privilege offered by the state, and hisspeech bears upon his capacity in that regard, then it would be ridiculous,negligent, and just plain stupid for it not to be taken into consideration."I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" but it isstill CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (the lawyer andapplicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.Do I have this right ???. Have a GREAT day !!!. Chase

Burden of proof.

They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment.....
the difference is that one has a vested property right in his
license to practice law, and the other has only an expectancy
in some day acquiring a law license, and is essentially only
assured due process rights of fair consideration of his
application.

The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he
is unfit, while the state is entitled to have the applicant
bear the burden of proving he is fit.
Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference.

-Merlin

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 06:33:59 +0000 (UTC),
c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) writes:All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer andan applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, doesthe applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his"approved" counterpart?If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected ---that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq War forexample, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no".Based on what others have written, it appears to me that (a) theapplicant's 1AM rights are weaker but (b) we don't call them "weaker".

See what I mean about Rahul, Solar?


- Jon Beaver

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:08:42 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far, far away, I asked a small question.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 ??
I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" but it isstill CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (the lawyer andapplicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.Do I have this right ???. Have a GREAT day !!!. Chase Burden of proof. They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment..... the difference is that one has a vested property right in his license to practice law, and the other has only an expectancy in some day acquiring a law license, and is essentially only assured due process rights of fair consideration of his application. The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he is unfit, while the state is entitled to have the applicant bear the burden of proving he is fit. Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference. -Merlin

Yes, but his question was not with regard to bar application but "Does
a Bar Applicant have the First Amendment rights to say what he
wants/needs to say, evidently in this case to maintain a website, or
does he NOT ??"

I'm reminded of William James' famous story about a group of
philosophers watching a squirrel hiding from them behind a tree. As
they continued going around the tree, the squirrel kept going around
the tree to stay hidden from them. Being philosophers, an argument
arose as to whether they were going around the squirrel! James
pointed out what he thought ought to be obvious: It wasn't a
disagreement of fact, but a disagreement over the use of the word
"around."

No two people are identical nor equally situated. Any two people can
be said to be "unequal" in some respect. But what's the point in that
usage? You can CALL a dog's tail a leg, and then SAY that the dog
has five legs, but you can't make the dog run on it.

An attorney may practice law, a bar applicant may not. Therefore, an
attorney may do, including SAY, things that an unlicensed person may
not. Does that implicate the First Amendment? Does that raise an
issue of "equality" in any constitutional sense? I don't see how.
People have been denied a license to practice law for practicing law
without a license.





- Jon Beaver

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) writes:All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer andan applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, doesthe applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his"approved" counterpart?If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected ---that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq War forexample, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no". Based on what others have written, it appears to me that (a) the applicant's 1AM rights are weaker but (b) we don't call them "weaker".

Spot on! It's what Jon and Larry are dancing around and trying
their damnest to rationalize away.

In article <3F141EE7.CF265CAB@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Rahul Dhesi wrote: solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) writes:All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer andan applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, doesthe applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his"approved" counterpart?If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected ---that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq War forexample, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no". Based on what others have written, it appears to me that (a) the applicant's 1AM rights are weaker but (b) we don't call them "weaker". Spot on! It's what Jon and Larry are dancing around and tryingtheir damnest to rationalize away.

I'm not rationalizing it. I'm admitting it and trying to explain to your
pea brain why it's not only an accurate statement of the law, but why it's
a GOOD thing.

In article <3F14AA13.27D6339B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: You are admitting that a bar applicant is a second-class citizen withrespect to his right to speak on public issues of the day?!? That youhave more of a right to participate in governmental affairs than I do?!?

I agree that I have a more-secured and protected interest in my license to
practice law than a bar applicant in his right to be granted a license,
yes. Not only have I never denied this point, I have cited you at least
two Supreme Court cases which stand for this VERY proposiion - Perry v.
Sindermann and Roth v. Board of Regents.

Neither one of us is a second class citizen. All I am saying is my
license is a vested property interest, which a bar applicant does not
have.

Bar applicants' 1Am rights *are* weaker, but we dare not CALL them"weaker" -- in the bizarre world of the Bar, truth is not to be utteredin plain terms, under pain of disbarment. Well, thank you for playing! Judging by your views, it would seemthat the only difference between a Jew and a Nazi is about sixty years.

Of course it does to you, you racist, ibgoted, anti-Semetic, neo-Nazi
white supremacist. No wonder you mention Mathew Hale at least once a day.
and trying to explain to your pea brain why it's not only an accurate statement of the law, but why it's a GOOD thing. I can't for the life of me think that it could EVER be a good thing fora person to have to live in terror of how you (or, a Saddam Hussein)might interpret my ostensibly "protected" speech.

You know what? Everyone's different. I'm not going to lose my job
because of my political points of view. In late 2004, George Bush might
very well lose his job because of his politics and his opinions.
Likewise, I won't lose my law license for arguing that acupuncture can
cure AIDS.... but a doctor might lose his license. Of course different
people face consequences of their actions. This is not even relevant to
the first amendment.

mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in
news:3a5184d4.64552179@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far, far away, I asked a smallquestion.Does a Bar Applicant have the First Amendment rights to say what hewants/needs to say, evidently in this case to maintain a website, ordoes he NOT ??Maybe I was initially too broad. Maybe I need to go to law school tolearn how to ask questions, and if that is true, I greatly apologizefor not precisely enough articulating my inquiry. While I am a degreedand licensed professional myself -- one state and one federallicense--- that does not follow that I have the necessary verbalsharpness needed when discussing matters in the arena of legalgladiatiors.Nevertheless, I have learned some things here, and am grateful forthat. I have learned that the 1AM protections are not absolute over*all* speech. While they may cover 97% out of 100, there are limits andthey do not include words that: either injure, threaten or presents"clear and present dangers"/the inducement to partake in unlawfulaction. While, those are certainly things to avoid, they also do notseem to fit the parameters of this case.All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer andan applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, doesthe applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his"approved" counterpart?If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected--- that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq Warfor example, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no".Yes, they can both say the same thing freely, or No, they are indifferent classes of "protected" speech. These men, in terms of 1AM --not their ability to perform the "service" of representation--- areeither equals... or they are not.I do NOT wish to sound out of tune here either. Gentlemen, i commendyou all for your efforts, knowledge and legal considerations, butsomewhere in the nuances of the details, I feel the simple issue ---they are equals or they are not --- has blown over my head. I need tohave that starting point settled before i can *even* wonder how in theheck GOD and Ted's concerns over Ken Smith's immortal soul fit intothis thread.So, there I am. Pulled over at the rest area on the information superhighway, having my decaffinated tea, wondering how the Fog will makeits next move, and reading thru the weekends worth of new posts.... andI see something that jumps out at me. Now, I might be wrong here, thereis a *small* context issue that may need to be addressed, but i THINK ISEE AN ANSWER when....>Larry wrote:"I've told you from day one that bar applicants and bar members ARE indifferent categories, and in support I cited two cases that *you* firstmentioned - Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Bd. of Regents. A barapplicant has no property interest in obtaining a law license, but abar member has a property interest if the state tries to ttake away HISbar license."Furthermore, Larry Wrote:"Yes. His speech is totally and completely protected (andreprehensible). If he wants to stand on a soapbox, spout off his views,then return home at night, no one can stop him. But if he wants aprivilege offered by the state, and his speech bears upon his capacityin that regard, then it would be ridiculous, negligent, and just plainstupid for it not to be taken into consideration."I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" butit is still CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (thelawyer and applicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.Do I have this right ???. Have a GREAT day !!!. Chase Burden of proof. They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment..... the difference is that one has a vested property right in his license to practice law, and the other has only an expectancy in some day acquiring a law license, and is essentially only assured due process rights of fair consideration of his application. The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he is unfit, while the state is entitled to have the applicant bear the burden of proving he is fit. Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference. -Merlin

That seems to be the first coherent post in this thread! IANAL

Larry wrote:
In article <3F14AA13.27D6339B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:

[snipped to get to point]
Bar applicants' 1Am rights *are* weaker, but we dare not CALL them"weaker" -- in the bizarre world of the Bar, truth is not to be utteredin plain terms, under pain of disbarment. Well, thank you for playing! Judging by your views, it would seemthat the only difference between a Jew and a Nazi is about sixty years. Of course it does to you, you racist, ibgoted, anti-Semetic, neo-Nazi white supremacist.

Funny how the one crucial qualifier in that paragraph mysteriously
disappeared -- after all, it wouldn't do to call me a bigot when I go
out of my way to point out that all Jews aren't like Larry, and they
would almost to a man disagree with him....

A statement taken out of context is a pretext, and half the truth is
often a lie in effect. Twing v. Schott. Just like a lawyer, to play fast
and loose with the truth! And just like a lawyer to demonstrate so
graphically the woeful ethical standard to which the profession has
so ably limbo'd as of late....

Neat work, Larry! Professional-grade.... :)

Subject: Re: Well, DOES A Bar Applicant Have 1AM Rights ?
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:28:50 GMT
From: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: misc.legal

Larry wrote:

[snip]

Well, thank you for playing! Judging by your views, it would seem
that the only difference between a Jew and a Nazi is about sixty years.
[Fortunately, I know too many Jews too well to think that even more
than a few of them -- including my Jewish lawyer, who was shocked
at this! -- would agree with you.]
and trying to explain to your pea brain why it's not only an accurate statement of the law, but why it's a GOOD thing.

I can't for the life of me think that it could EVER be a good thing for
a person to have to live in terror of how you (or, a Saddam Hussein)
might interpret my ostensibly "protected" speech.

Alun Palmer wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in news:3a5184d4.64552179@news.sf.sbcglobal.net: solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far, far away, I asked a smallquestion.Does a Bar Applicant have the First Amendment rights to say what hewants/needs to say, evidently in this case to maintain a website, ordoes he NOT ??Maybe I was initially too broad. Maybe I need to go to law school tolearn how to ask questions, and if that is true, I greatly apologizefor not precisely enough articulating my inquiry. While I am a degreedand licensed professional myself -- one state and one federallicense--- that does not follow that I have the necessary verbalsharpness needed when discussing matters in the arena of legalgladiatiors.Nevertheless, I have learned some things here, and am grateful forthat. I have learned that the 1AM protections are not absolute over*all* speech. While they may cover 97% out of 100, there are limits andthey do not include words that: either injure, threaten or presents"clear and present dangers"/the inducement to partake in unlawfulaction. While, those are certainly things to avoid, they also do notseem to fit the parameters of this case.All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer andan applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, doesthe applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his"approved" counterpart?If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected--- that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq Warfor example, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no".Yes, they can both say the same thing freely, or No, they are indifferent classes of "protected" speech. These men, in terms of 1AM --not their ability to perform the "service" of representation--- areeither equals... or they are not.I do NOT wish to sound out of tune here either. Gentlemen, i commendyou all for your efforts, knowledge and legal considerations, butsomewhere in the nuances of the details, I feel the simple issue ---they are equals or they are not --- has blown over my head. I need tohave that starting point settled before i can *even* wonder how in theheck GOD and Ted's concerns over Ken Smith's immortal soul fit intothis thread.So, there I am. Pulled over at the rest area on the information superhighway, having my decaffinated tea, wondering how the Fog will makeits next move, and reading thru the weekends worth of new posts.... andI see something that jumps out at me. Now, I might be wrong here, thereis a *small* context issue that may need to be addressed, but i THINK ISEE AN ANSWER when....>>Larry wrote:"I've told you from day one that bar applicants and bar members ARE indifferent categories, and in support I cited two cases that *you* firstmentioned - Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Bd. of Regents. A barapplicant has no property interest in obtaining a law license, but abar member has a property interest if the state tries to ttake away HISbar license."Furthermore, Larry Wrote:"Yes. His speech is totally and completely protected (andreprehensible). If he wants to stand on a soapbox, spout off his views,then return home at night, no one can stop him. But if he wants aprivilege offered by the state, and his speech bears upon his capacityin that regard, then it would be ridiculous, negligent, and just plainstupid for it not to be taken into consideration."I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" butit is still CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (thelawyer and applicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.Do I have this right ???. Have a GREAT day !!!. Chase
Burden of proof. They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment..... the difference is that one has a vested property right in his license to practice law, and the other has only an expectancy in some day acquiring a law license, and is essentially only assured due process rights of fair consideration of his application. The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he is unfit, while the state is entitled to have the applicant bear the burden of proving he is fit. Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference. -Merlin That seems to be the first coherent post in this thread! IANAL

Wow! BIG difference. The applicant bears the burden of proving
by a preponderance, and the State bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance. The weight of a feather....

Ken Smith wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote: Merlin wrote: SolarChase wrote:
> I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" but> it is still CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (the> lawyer and applicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.
> Do I have this right ???
Burden of proof.
They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment ... the difference is that one has a vested property right in his license to practice law, and the other has only an expectancy in some day acquiring a law license, and is essentially only assured due process rights of fair consideration of his application.
The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he is unfit, while the state is entitled to have the applicant bear the burden of proving he is fit. Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference.
That seems to be the first coherent post in this thread! IANAL
Wow! BIG difference. The applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance, and the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance. The weight of a feather ...

The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst the
state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER ("licensee") is
unfit (where questions arise). Got it. BIG difference.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote: mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in news:3a5184d4.64552179@news.sf.sbcglobal.net: solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:>A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far, far away, I asked a small>question.>>Does a Bar Applicant have the First Amendment rights to say what he>wants/needs to say, evidently in this case to maintain a website, or>does he NOT ??>>Maybe I was initially too broad. Maybe I need to go to law school to>learn how to ask questions, and if that is true, I greatly apologize>for not precisely enough articulating my inquiry. While I am a degreed>and licensed professional myself -- one state and one federal>license--- that does not follow that I have the necessary verbal>sharpness needed when discussing matters in the arena of legal>gladiatiors.>>Nevertheless, I have learned some things here, and am grateful for>that. I have learned that the 1AM protections are not absolute over>*all* speech. While they may cover 97% out of 100, there are limits and>they do not include words that: either injure, threaten or presents>"clear and present dangers"/the inducement to partake in unlawful>action. While, those are certainly things to avoid, they also do not>seem to fit the parameters of this case.>>All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer and>an applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, does>the applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his>"approved" counterpart?>>If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected>--- that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq War>for example, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no".>>Yes, they can both say the same thing freely, or No, they are in>different classes of "protected" speech. These men, in terms of 1AM -->not their ability to perform the "service" of representation--- are>either equals... or they are not.>>I do NOT wish to sound out of tune here either. Gentlemen, i commend>you all for your efforts, knowledge and legal considerations, but>somewhere in the nuances of the details, I feel the simple issue --->they are equals or they are not --- has blown over my head. I need to>have that starting point settled before i can *even* wonder how in the>heck GOD and Ted's concerns over Ken Smith's immortal soul fit into>this thread.>>So, there I am. Pulled over at the rest area on the information super>highway, having my decaffinated tea, wondering how the Fog will make>its next move, and reading thru the weekends worth of new posts.... and>I see something that jumps out at me. Now, I might be wrong here, there>is a *small* context issue that may need to be addressed, but i THINK I>SEE AN ANSWER when....>>>>Larry wrote:>>"I've told you from day one that bar applicants and bar members ARE in>different categories, and in support I cited two cases that *you* first>mentioned - Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Bd. of Regents. A bar>applicant has no property interest in obtaining a law license, but a>bar member has a property interest if the state tries to ttake away HIS>bar license.">>Furthermore, Larry Wrote:>>"Yes. His speech is totally and completely protected (and>reprehensible). If he wants to stand on a soapbox, spout off his views,>then return home at night, no one can stop him. But if he wants a>privilege offered by the state, and his speech bears upon his capacity>in that regard, then it would be ridiculous, negligent, and just plain>stupid for it not to be taken into consideration.">>I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" but>it is still CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (the>lawyer and applicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.>>>Do I have this right ???>>. Have a GREAT day !!!>. Chase Burden of proof. They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment..... the difference is that one has a vested property right in his license to practice law, and the other has only an expectancy in some day acquiring a law license, and is essentially only assured due process rights of fair consideration of his application. The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he is unfit, while the state is entitled to have the applicant bear the burden of proving he is fit. Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference. -Merlin That seems to be the first coherent post in this thread! IANAL Wow! BIG difference. The applicant bears the burden of provingby a preponderance, and the State bears the burden of proving by apreponderance. The weight of a feather....

Its a start.

Now look at Jon's post responding Message-ID:
<tg28hvg4h45ghucc4aic5t6mcqb7qijngu@4ax.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:46:10 -0700
for comments regarding your so-called first amendment issues.

You aren't presumed fit simply because you got a law degree
and passed the bar, assuming you did all that. Every state
( I am so informed by my state supreme court) requires an
applicant for a law license to prove "moral character" or the
semantic equivalent. Indeed the licencing board in California
is statutorily REQUIRED to make a DETERMINATION of
moral character for each applicant, and with other
qualifications to recommend to the supreme court only those
applicants it has determined are qualified. The CA Supreme
court has long ago given up trying to personally screen applicants.

[Ken... read that last line again: APPLICANT BURDEN, if there
is doubt, they don't recommend. Are you sure that's not the
way it is in CO? ]

I might add that the bar pass rate in California for people who
went to law school, graduated with a JD, and took the bar exam,
typically hovers around 50-60 %. Most of those who don't pass
the first time will never pass it. (Guessing) About 30% never
get a license on that basis alone! Yet every person, lawyer to
professor i've ever talked to acknowledges that these exams
have as little relation to legal ability and knowledge as **** has
to shineola. And that doesn't even consider the subjective
vagarities encountered in grading!
And still we use them. WHY WHY WHY???
Because, we are told, we must use SOMETHING.

Is there injustice in denying a license to a wonderful person,
a brilliant capable advocate, a person with the heart and
soul of a great lawyer, a license on the basis that they
could not pass a stupid endurance test requiring quick
wits and a touch of blarney and bull****? Oh monsterous
evil to do that! But not injustice as we define it IN LAW.

More monsterous injustice still to meet, as I have done
in my life, a person so bright and able that it brings one
to weep at the loss to all of us ,to weep at the loss of
that person's opportunity to become something amazing,
one who elevates us on their shoulders, and strides with
us through the world like a giant.
What should we tell this person who has been denied
opportunities by virtue for the cruelest injustices of all...
poverty and bigotry? What shall we say to console them?
What shall we say to console us? Words fail me.

But now we come to you, and it is possible you have been
unfairly treated, yet you have yet to cause me to shed even
a crocodile tear in your cause. Even though you are not
yet a lawyer you have all the education of a lawyer, and
despite this impressive advantage we look to how you are
approaching this problem of a denial of license. If you
become a lawyer you will surely see evils far greater than
this visited on your clients. How will you help THEM, if
you cannot approach this problem like a lawyer would.

You cannot just swing your arms at the first amendment
while ignoring the genuine issues of the case. You cannot
simply obsess upon one defeat, for there is more to a war
than one battle, and such obsession destroys your
effectiveness to wage on to victory.

If you are fit to practice law in CO, then prove it. Answer the
genuine concerns and complaints, not the fantasy case you
wished you had. The lawyers here are actually trying
to help you, even as they crush you. If you cannot be your own
effective advocate under this friendly duress, can you in
conscience profess yourself ready to stand with and as
advocate for a client when all the world stands hostile
and against them?

Are you sure you're ready to be a lawyer?

-Merlin

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:22:01 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Alun Palmer wrote: mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in news:3a5184d4.64552179@news.sf.sbcglobal.net: > solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote: > >>A long, long time ago... in a galaxy far, far away, I asked a small >>question. >> >>Does a Bar Applicant have the First Amendment rights to say what he >>wants/needs to say, evidently in this case to maintain a website, or >>does he NOT ?? >> >>Maybe I was initially too broad. Maybe I need to go to law school to >>learn how to ask questions, and if that is true, I greatly apologize >>for not precisely enough articulating my inquiry. While I am a degreed >>and licensed professional myself -- one state and one federal >>license--- that does not follow that I have the necessary verbal >>sharpness needed when discussing matters in the arena of legal >>gladiatiors. >> >>Nevertheless, I have learned some things here, and am grateful for >>that. I have learned that the 1AM protections are not absolute over >>*all* speech. While they may cover 97% out of 100, there are limits and >>they do not include words that: either injure, threaten or presents >>"clear and present dangers"/the inducement to partake in unlawful >>action. While, those are certainly things to avoid, they also do not >>seem to fit the parameters of this case. >> >>All I wanted to know -- and still want to know-- was: if a lawyer and >>an applicant say exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, does >>the applicant have LESS of a "right" to say it.... as opposed to his >>"approved" counterpart? >> >>If we distill it to something that is easy and unquestionably protected >>--- that other 97%-- peacefully weighing pros *or* cons to the Iraq War >>for example, it should break down as simple as "yes" or "no". >> >>Yes, they can both say the same thing freely, or No, they are in >>different classes of "protected" speech. These men, in terms of 1AM -- >>not their ability to perform the "service" of representation--- are >>either equals... or they are not. >> >>I do NOT wish to sound out of tune here either. Gentlemen, i commend >>you all for your efforts, knowledge and legal considerations, but >>somewhere in the nuances of the details, I feel the simple issue --- >>they are equals or they are not --- has blown over my head. I need to >>have that starting point settled before i can *even* wonder how in the >>heck GOD and Ted's concerns over Ken Smith's immortal soul fit into >>this thread. >> >>So, there I am. Pulled over at the rest area on the information super >>highway, having my decaffinated tea, wondering how the Fog will make >>its next move, and reading thru the weekends worth of new posts.... and >>I see something that jumps out at me. Now, I might be wrong here, there >>is a *small* context issue that may need to be addressed, but i THINK I >>SEE AN ANSWER when.... >> >>>>Larry wrote: >> >>"I've told you from day one that bar applicants and bar members ARE in >>different categories, and in support I cited two cases that *you* first >>mentioned - Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Bd. of Regents. A bar >>applicant has no property interest in obtaining a law license, but a >>bar member has a property interest if the state tries to ttake away HIS >>bar license." >> >>Furthermore, Larry Wrote: >> >>"Yes. His speech is totally and completely protected (and >>reprehensible). If he wants to stand on a soapbox, spout off his views, >>then return home at night, no one can stop him. But if he wants a >>privilege offered by the state, and his speech bears upon his capacity >>in that regard, then it would be ridiculous, negligent, and just plain >>stupid for it not to be taken into consideration." >> >>I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" but >>it is still CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (the >>lawyer and applicant) ARE NOT EQUALS. >> >> >>Do I have this right ??? >> >>. Have a GREAT day !!! >>. Chase > Burden of proof. > > They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment..... > the difference is that one has a vested property right in his > license to practice law, and the other has only an expectancy > in some day acquiring a law license, and is essentially only > assured due process rights of fair consideration of his > application. > > The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he > is unfit, while the state is entitled to have the applicant > bear the burden of proving he is fit. > Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference. > > -Merlin That seems to be the first coherent post in this thread! IANAL Wow! BIG difference. The applicant bears the burden of provingby a preponderance, and the State bears the burden of proving by apreponderance. The weight of a feather.... Its a start. Now look at Jon's post responding Message-ID:<tg28hvg4h45ghucc4aic5t6mcqb7qijngu@4ax.com>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:46:10 -0700for comments regarding your so-called first amendment issues. You aren't presumed fit simply because you got a law degree and passed the bar, assuming you did all that. Every state ( I am so informed by my state supreme court) requires an applicant for a law license to prove "moral character" or the semantic equivalent. Indeed the licencing board in California is statutorily REQUIRED to make a DETERMINATION of moral character for each applicant, and with other qualifications to recommend to the supreme court only those applicants it has determined are qualified. The CA Supreme court has long ago given up trying to personally screen applicants. [Ken... read that last line again: APPLICANT BURDEN, if there is doubt, they don't recommend. Are you sure that's not the way it is in CO? ] I might add that the bar pass rate in California for people who went to law school, graduated with a JD, and took the bar exam, typically hovers around 50-60 %. Most of those who don't pass the first time will never pass it. (Guessing) About 30% never get a license on that basis alone! Yet every person, lawyer to professor i've ever talked to acknowledges that these exams have as little relation to legal ability and knowledge as **** has to shineola. And that doesn't even consider the subjective vagarities encountered in grading! And still we use them. WHY WHY WHY??? Because, we are told, we must use SOMETHING. Is there injustice in denying a license to a wonderful person, a brilliant capable advocate, a person with the heart and soul of a great lawyer, a license on the basis that they could not pass a stupid endurance test requiring quick wits and a touch of blarney and bull****? Oh monsterous evil to do that! But not injustice as we define it IN LAW. More monsterous injustice still to meet, as I have done in my life, a person so bright and able that it brings one to weep at the loss to all of us ,to weep at the loss of that person's opportunity to become something amazing, one who elevates us on their shoulders, and strides with us through the world like a giant. What should we tell this person who has been denied opportunities by virtue for the cruelest injustices of all... poverty and bigotry? What shall we say to console them? What shall we say to console us? Words fail me. But now we come to you, and it is possible you have been unfairly treated, yet you have yet to cause me to shed even a crocodile tear in your cause. Even though you are not yet a lawyer you have all the education of a lawyer, and despite this impressive advantage we look to how you are approaching this problem of a denial of license. If you become a lawyer you will surely see evils far greater than this visited on your clients. How will you help THEM, if you cannot approach this problem like a lawyer would. You cannot just swing your arms at the first amendment while ignoring the genuine issues of the case. You cannot simply obsess upon one defeat, for there is more to a war than one battle, and such obsession destroys your effectiveness to wage on to victory. If you are fit to practice law in CO, then prove it. Answer the genuine concerns and complaints, not the fantasy case you wished you had. The lawyers here are actually trying to help you, even as they crush you. If you cannot be your own effective advocate under this friendly duress, can you in conscience profess yourself ready to stand with and as advocate for a client when all the world stands hostile and against them? Are you sure you're ready to be a lawyer? -Merlin

Bravo!


- Jon Beaver

In article <p7tbhvofsgctuqc8mhqc35lpgkjpqslndk@4ax.com>, Jon Beaver
<jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:22:01 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:

(mostly snipped)
More monsterous injustice still to meet, as I have done in my life, a person so bright and able that it brings one to weep at the loss to all of us ,to weep at the loss of that person's opportunity to become something amazing, one who elevates us on their shoulders, and strides with us through the world like a giant. What should we tell this person who has been denied opportunities by virtue for the cruelest injustices of all... poverty and bigotry? What shall we say to console them? What shall we say to console us? Words fail me. But now we come to you, and it is possible you have been unfairly treated, yet you have yet to cause me to shed even a crocodile tear in your cause. Even though you are not yet a lawyer you have all the education of a lawyer, and despite this impressive advantage we look to how you are approaching this problem of a denial of license. If you become a lawyer you will surely see evils far greater than this visited on your clients. How will you help THEM, if you cannot approach this problem like a lawyer would. You cannot just swing your arms at the first amendment while ignoring the genuine issues of the case. You cannot simply obsess upon one defeat, for there is more to a war than one battle, and such obsession destroys your effectiveness to wage on to victory. If you are fit to practice law in CO, then prove it. Answer the genuine concerns and complaints, not the fantasy case you wished you had. The lawyers here are actually trying to help you, even as they crush you. If you cannot be your own effective advocate under this friendly duress, can you in conscience profess yourself ready to stand with and as advocate for a client when all the world stands hostile and against them? Are you sure you're ready to be a lawyer? -MerlinBravo!- Jon Beaver

Amen!

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Alun Palmer wrote: Merlin wrote:> SolarChase wrote:>> I see in context, the first one is dealing with "property interest" but>> it is still CLOSE. These two excepts lead me to conclude these men (the>> lawyer and applicant) ARE NOT EQUALS.>> Do I have this right ???> Burden of proof.> They have exactly the same civil rights wrt the 1st Amendment ... the> difference is that one has a vested property right in his license to> practice law, and the other has only an expectancy in some day acquiring> a law license, and is essentially only assured due process rights of fair> consideration of his application.> The licensee is entitled to burden the state with proving he is unfit,> while the state is entitled to have the applicant bear the burden of> proving he is fit. Is that a difference? Sure. Big difference. That seems to be the first coherent post in this thread! IANAL Wow! BIG difference. The applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance, and the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance. The weight of a feather ... The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it. BIG difference.

The weight of a feather....

Ken Smith wrote:
Merlin wrote:
You aren't presumed fit simply because you got a law degree and passed the bar, assuming you did all that. Every state (I am so informed by my state supreme court) requires an applicant for a law license to prove "moral character" or the semantic equivalent. Indeed the licencing board in California is statutorily REQUIRED to make a DETERMINATION of moral character for each applicant, and with other qualifications to recommend to the supreme court only those applicants it has determined are qualified. The CA Supreme court has long ago given up trying to personally screen applicants.
[Ken ... read that last line again: APPLICANT BURDEN, if there is doubt, they don't recommend. Are you sure that's not the way it is in CO?]
I have no problem with that, as long as my case for admission is considered by a fair and impartial tribunal in a manner which meets constitutional muster.

And it was. The Board of Examiners of the Colorado Bar Association,
deliberating upon your testimony AND CONDUCT before the inquiry panel which
they appointed to evaluate you. You contend that they were not impartial?
Then the burden falls upon you to demonstrate that this is so. Trying to nip
away at the margins about what ultimately constitutes a "fair and impartial"
tribunal won't cut it. You haven't presented any evidence that they weren't
fair and impartial in your case.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Merlin wrote: You aren't presumed fit simply because you got a law degree and passed the bar, assuming you did all that. Every state (I am so informed by my state supreme court) requires an applicant for a law license to prove "moral character" or the semantic equivalent. Indeed the licencing board in California is statutorily REQUIRED to make a DETERMINATION of moral character for each applicant, and with other qualifications to recommend to the supreme court only those applicants it has determined are qualified. The CA Supreme court has long ago given up trying to personally screen applicants. [Ken ... read that last line again: APPLICANT BURDEN, if there is doubt, they don't recommend. Are you sure that's not the way it is in CO?] I have no problem with that, as long as my case for admission is considered by a fair and impartial tribunal in a manner which meets constitutional muster. And it was.

Was it? That is still to be determined.
The Board of Examiners of the Colorado Bar Association, deliberating upon your testimony AND CONDUCT before the inquiry panel which they appointed to evaluate you.

Did they? If only one side of a case is presented, it isn't a fair
hearing. Hell, even *you'd* admit that, if you didn't hate me so
much.
You contend that they were not impartial?

I contend that the procedures fell short of constitutional minima.
Then the burden falls upon you to demonstrate that this is so. Trying to nip away at the margins about what ultimately constitutes a "fair and impartial" tribunal won't cut it.

That's what you fail to understand in that booze-addled 'mind'
of yours. I am entitled to fair procedure, and if I don't get it, it
doesn't matter how "fair and impartial" the tribunal was.

The proof is in the pudding.
You haven't presented any evidence that they weren't fair and impartial in your case.

Ted, we've already established that on account of your well-
documented personal animus toward me, you cannot be a fair
and impartial juror in such matters.

Merlin wrote:
c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes:

[where angels should fear to tread -- but hey, I'm no angel! :)]
Perhaps the most fundamental 'justice' is peace, which is accomplished when a society has and adheres to rules of law. Congruence of those laws with one or more 'moral philosophies' is a consequence of who/how society decides what laws it will have. In law, 'justice' (in the small sence) simply refers to an adherence to law. Outside of law, 'justice' (also in the small sense) is that which we regard as congruent with our own moral philosophy, our ' right and wrong'. Thus, when we are speaking about 'justice' or 'injustice' we are likely to be employing a rhetorical device examining law through the lens of a particular philosophy, that is, making an argument as to what the law 'should be'. Now a question for you. When the man say.... "No Justice, No Peace." what is he saying?

Generally speaking, he is saying that he deserves fair treatment,
and will fight if he doesn't get it. A person has a right not only to
fair treatment, but to be satisfied that he is being treated fairly --
the right not only to be heard, but the right to hear why. That is,
as Tribe puts it, inherent in decent treatment.

Our Founding Fathers didn't feel they were getting it, and got
so mad that they started killing people over it. The Palestinians
of the West Bank don't feel they are getting it, and their young
children are blowing themselves up on streetcorners.

Without justice -- fair treatment -- there can be no peace.

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG difference.
The weight of a feather ...
... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting that you are not unfit. There's your problem.
In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to present your case, isn't it? :)

And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the
inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst>>> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER>>> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG>>> difference.
>> The weight of a feather ...
> ... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting> that you are not unfit. There's your problem.
In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to present your case, isn't it? :)
And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board.
And you believe it is appropriate for someone to be required to cooperate with an illegal order, right?

I -- like you -- am not the one who ultimately gets to decide which order is
and is not illegal. But -- unlike you -- I recognise and acknowledge that
fact.
Or would you impose that requirement on me alone -- because you hate me personally?

I do not hate you. I only wish that you would get your head screwed on, and
get on with the rest of your life. But seeing how you react to those others
here who are much more qualifed than I to talk some sense into you about this
issue, I am becoming more and more convinced that the Examiners' Board was
quite justified in requiring you to submit to a psychological examination.
Take your Bible and shove it up your ***, Ted.

So what will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final Judgement?
That you believe you are a better judge than He is?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis," another charlatan evangelist,
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message So what will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final
Judgement? That you believe you are a better judge than He is?

Hey, Kaldis, read Mark Twain's "Etiquette for the Afterlife." You may see
yourself in it somewhere. Don't forget when you get to heaven to uncover
and bow when you meet an angel. Of course, after a couple of days there
you will be pushed over the brink into the "world" below. Anyone as mouthy
and vexatious as yourself would never fit in there and would be quickly
culled from the group. And besides, according the the Book of Revelations
(which you have never read), space is limited. Of course, the locals,
seeing your demise, would receive some entertainment thereby. --

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> Ken Smith wrote:>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>>>> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst>>>> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER>>>> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG>>>> difference.>>> The weight of a feather ...>> ... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting>> that you are not unfit. There's your problem.> In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to> present your case, isn't it? :) And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board. And you believe it is appropriate for someone to be required to cooperate with an illegal order, right? I -- like you -- am not the one who ultimately gets to decide which order is and is not illegal. But -- unlike you -- I recognise and acknowledge that fact.

All I have ever wanted is to have a fair and independent tribunal
determine whether the order is legal or illegal. And that is the one
thing I have not been able to obtain.
Or would you impose that requirement on me alone -- because you hate me personally? I do not hate you.

So, why did you start this thread, except to malign me?
I only wish that you would get your head screwed on, and get on with the rest of your life. But seeing how you react to those others here who are much more qualifed than I to talk some sense into you about this issue, I am becoming more and more convinced that the Examiners' Board was quite justified in requiring you to submit to a psychological examination.

Bull****. You would accept any negative assessment of me from
any quarter, because it suits your selfish purposes. I've taken an
IME, and passed with flying colors. But that doesn't matter to you,
does it?
Take your Bible and shove it up your ***, Ted. So what will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final Judgement? That you believe you are a better judge than He is?

I don't have to worry about it, because your god is as dead as
Odin.

Larry Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
So what will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final Judgement? That you believe you are a better judge than He is?
Hey, Kaldis, read Mark Twain's "Etiquette for the Afterlife."

Why should I? Mark Twain's work is man's word. I read the Bible, which is
God's Word. What advantage is there in reading man's word over God's Word?

(BTW, actually I have already read "Etiquette for the Afterlife".)
[...]
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> lied in message
news:3F183715.CCB7CCB6@ I read the Bible.

In article <3F17DD4F.97890C8B@concentric.net>,
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst>>> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER>>> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG difference.
>> The weight of a feather ...
> ... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting> that you are not unfit. There's your problem.
In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to present your case, isn't it? :)
And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board.
And you believe it is appropriate for someone to be required tocooperate with an illegal order, right?

You weren't given an order, and so it obviously wasn't illegal. You were
given an opportunity.

---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

David Marc Nieporent wrote:
In article <3F17DD4F.97890C8B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: Ken Smith wrote: > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >> Ken Smith wrote: >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >>>> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst >>>> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER >>>> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG difference. >>> The weight of a feather ... >> ... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting >> that you are not unfit. There's your problem. > In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to > present your case, isn't it? :) And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board. And you believe it is appropriate for someone to be required tocooperate with an illegal order, right? You weren't given an order, and so it obviously wasn't illegal.

As I said, you don't know the law. And a curbside opinion is
worth about what you pay for it.
You were given an opportunity.

-- conditioned on my submitting to a constitutionally repugnant
order. But you have no problem with my being required to check
my constitutional rights at the door, do you?

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: All I have ever wanted is to have a fair and independent tribunal determine whether the order is legal or illegal. And that is the one thing I have not been able to obtain. There are many here, who are independent of the controversy, and who are qualified to give a credible answer, who have told you that it is legal.

That they are lawyers doesn't make them competent to offer
an informed opinion. To be able to do that, they would have
to have a far more comprehensive working knowledge of 1Am
and civil rights law.

This is about as far out of their bailiwick as tax law.

Besides, Ted, this is USENET. No one *EVER* concedes a
point -- especially, you. :) Hell, it took over a week to get even
one of them to concede that I was entitled under federal law to
due process!

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:48:06 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
David Marc Nieporent wrote: In article <3F17DD4F.97890C8B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> >> Ken Smith wrote:> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> >>>> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst> >>>> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER> >>>> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG difference.> >>> The weight of a feather ...> >> ... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting> >> that you are not unfit. There's your problem.> > In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to> > present your case, isn't it? :)> And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the> inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board. And you believe it is appropriate for someone to be required tocooperate with an illegal order, right? You weren't given an order, and so it obviously wasn't illegal. As I said, you don't know the law. And a curbside opinion isworth about what you pay for it. You were given an opportunity. -- conditioned on my submitting to a constitutionally repugnantorder. But you have no problem with my being required to checkmy constitutional rights at the door, do you?

Yes, there is such a principle that a state may not condition
government entitlements on wholesale waiver of fundamental
constitutional rights without probable cause based on individuating
circumstances. There is also a principle that an application for a
professional license can't be denied arbitrarily. There is also a
principle that a person's privacy may not be invaded without probable
cause and a warrant. All three principles have their limits of
application. Those limits are exceeded by an argument that attempts
to combine them into a rule that a state may not condition a license
to practice law on the applicant's consent to a psychological
examination when there is good cause to believe that the examination
is necessary to determine facts relevant to fitness to practice law.

A state may not condition welfare benefits on the recipient's blanket
consent to search their home at any time for an "unrelated adult
male." But nobody is arguing that they cannot, on receipt of facts
giving rise to a reasonable belief that there is an ineligible person
in the home, condition further benefits on allowing inspection. The
rule is not that they can't invade your privacy. The rule is that
they can't do it arbitrarily and without good cause.

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:48:06 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:David Marc Nieporent wrote: In article <3F17DD4F.97890C8B@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: >"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: >> Ken Smith wrote: >> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >> >> Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >> >>>> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst >> >>>> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER >> >>>> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG difference. >> >>> The weight of a feather ... >> >> ... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting >> >> that you are not unfit. There's your problem. >> > In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to >> > present your case, isn't it? :) >> And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the >> inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board. > And you believe it is appropriate for someone to be required to >cooperate with an illegal order, right? You weren't given an order, and so it obviously wasn't illegal. As I said, you don't know the law. And a curbside opinion isworth about what you pay for it. You were given an opportunity. -- conditioned on my submitting to a constitutionally repugnantorder. But you have no problem with my being required to checkmy constitutional rights at the door, do you? Yes, there is such a principle that a state may not condition government entitlements on wholesale waiver of fundamental constitutional rights without probable cause based on individuating circumstances. There is also a principle that an application for a professional license can't be denied arbitrarily. There is also a principle that a person's privacy may not be invaded without probable cause and a warrant.

But if you can't enforce these [principles] in a court of law as a
matter of right, THEY DO *NOT* EXIST.

We're talking in a vacuum, because you won't deal with the issues.
Going round and round and round on peripheral matters is not worth
my time any more.

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
All I have ever wanted is to have a fair and independent tribunaldetermine whether the order is legal or illegal. And that is the onething I have not been able to obtain.

What's this? You've already indicated that it wasn't an
"order", and you've offered no proof it was an order.
Unless you post the order, this contention is 'done'.

More concerning is that your brain seems to be stuck in
an endless loop replaying frivolous contentions. Why?

-Merlin

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: Ken Smith wrote: All I have ever wanted is to have a fair and independent tribunal determine whether the order is legal or illegal. And that is the one thing I have not been able to obtain. There are many here, who are independent of the controversy, and who are qualified to give a credible answer, who have told you that it is legal. That they are lawyers doesn't make them competent to offeran informed opinion. To be able to do that, they would haveto have a far more comprehensive working knowledge of 1Amand civil rights law.

So what you're saying is that a crazy person who is not a
lawyer is more competent to offer informed opinion
regarding our laws?

You say you went to law school? Yet you claim to
have brought a suit against a preacher based on his
statement that you were 'stalking' him? Some might
properly consider that suit as unlikely to survive analysis
as frivolous, or if surviving it, doing so based only on
the thinnest of technicalities.

Then you make repeated slanderous accusations against
members of the bench, impugn the impartiality of the
review panel, refer to Colorado courts as corrupt,
make claims seeking recusal of a judge on "indications"
of bribery, and and here you dare to disparage the
competence of attorneys here who are professionals
in the field of legal opinion.

I've resisted calling you crazy, but are you friggin NUTZO???
This is about as far out of their bailiwick as tax law.

You didn't mention you were stupid too.
I've seen no indications you possess knowledge or training
which would qualify you to hold a learned opinion on any of
these subjects, the contrary is actually indicated.
At most, generously speaking, you are 'only an egg'.
Besides, Ted, this is USENET. No one *EVER* concedes apoint -- especially, you. :) Hell, it took over a week to get evenone of them to concede that I was entitled under federal law todue process!
No one denied or doubted that a bar applicant is
entitled to fair consideration of the application.
It was your burden to demonstrate you were fit, and
your burden to demonstrate you were denied what
you should have recieved.

If you want further concessions: did you want me to
concede a doubt that your application to practice law
in California would fare no better than your CO aoplication?

Have a care what you ask. A lawyer would.

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:48:06 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:David Marc Nieporent wrote:> In article <3F17DD4F.97890C8B@concentric.net>,> Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:> >"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:> >> Ken Smith wrote:> >> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> >> >> Ken Smith wrote:> >> >>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> >> >>>> The APPLICANT bears the burden of proving that he is not unfit, whilst> >> >>>> the state bears the burden of proving that the PRACTISING LAWYER> >> >>>> ("licensee") is unfit (where questions arise). Got it? BIG difference.>> >> >>> The weight of a feather ...>> >> >> ... is greater than that of the evidence which you presented attesting> >> >> that you are not unfit. There's your problem.>> >> > In a sense, it is. If you can't have a hearing, it's rather tough to> >> > present your case, isn't it? :)>> >> And whose fault is that? You are the one who failed to cooperate with the> >> inquiry panel appointed by the Examiners' Board.>> > And you believe it is appropriate for someone to be required to> >cooperate with an illegal order, right?>> You weren't given an order, and so it obviously wasn't illegal. As I said, you don't know the law. And a curbside opinion isworth about what you pay for it.> You were given an opportunity. -- conditioned on my submitting to a constitutionally repugnantorder. But you have no problem with my being required to checkmy constitutional rights at the door, do you? Yes, there is such a principle that a state may not condition government entitlements on wholesale waiver of fundamental constitutional rights without probable cause based on individuating circumstances. There is also a principle that an application for a professional license can't be denied arbitrarily. There is also a principle that a person's privacy may not be invaded without probable cause and a warrant. But if you can't enforce these [principles] in a court of law as amatter of right, THEY DO *NOT* EXIST. We're talking in a vacuum, because you won't deal with the issues.Going round and round and round on peripheral matters is not worthmy time any more.

Nonsence. The circles are of your own devise.

You want the conversation to be about law in the abstract.
Your attempts to so direct the discussion provide the proof of what
every sensible lawyer knows and law students supposedly learn:
There is no law devoid of facts, no 'law in the abstract'.

The FACTS raise the issues, which raise the rule which frames the
analysis, which produces the conclusion. How could you pass
lawschool, much less the bar, without learning IRAC?

Now Jon has accomodated you (humored you) to the extent of stating
general principles that probably apply, but for the fact that other
rules may intercede in the analysis because of pesky FACTS
which are missing/hidden. He has asked you for the ruling of the
committee which you have complained of, and the court ruling
which addressed it. Post them on your site.

-Merlin

c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes:In law, 'justice' (in the small sence)simply refers to an adherence to law.Outside of law, 'justice' (also in the small sense) is [other things]...If we equate 'justice' to an adherance to the law, then this greatlycheapens the meaning of justice.

Obsessive circularity will debilitate you, Rahul.
A word may have several meanings, including one applicable to
legal proceedings. That a word may have a restricted meaning in
one context does not 'cheapen' the other meanings.
Justice is an end. The law and its application are a means to that end.If we confuse between the end and the means, we get a self-servingsystem that defines itself to be right and is therefore impossible tochange and improve. Find any tyrannical system of government, presentor past, and you will have an example of this.

Justice is the hand-servant to YOUR moral philosophy?
Sounds like you're the one professing tyranny, here, not me.
I was speaking of the US.
The US is a government of laws, Rahul, not men.
Majority rule with minority rights. Constitutional democracy.
Its a system, Rahul, a system of laws, not of men.

Within the context of law... justice is the product of adherence
to law. THAT is the secular moral philosophy of our society.
Deny it at your peril.
Prefacing this confusion between the end and the means with a phraselike "in law" doesn't make it any less dangerous.--Rahul
If so, confusion about who holds and wields temporal
power is more dangerous.

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:
We don't know. Ken hasn't given us any facts. What he has given usare arguments that a lack of due process is apparent without thefacts. I disagree with that.

Did the document at the following URL not have enough facts?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htm
--
Rahul

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:00:16 +0000 (UTC),
c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:We don't know. Ken hasn't given us any facts. What he has given usare arguments that a lack of due process is apparent without thefacts. I disagree with that.Did the document at the following URL not have enough facts? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htm

You're joking, right? It is a perfect poster child for conclusory
pleading.

- Jon Beaver

c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:We don't know. Ken hasn't given us any facts. What he has given usare arguments that a lack of due process is apparent without thefacts. I disagree with that.Did the document at the following URL not have enough facts? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htm--Rahul

Well... that may depend on your point of view, eh?
But, not really, such pleadings are arguments made with selective
facts.

Nonetheless, the findings that:

"The Panel finds that the manner in which Applicant has chosen to
pursue his continuing crusade to expose Bob Larson reveals a
significant lack of judgment which resulted in a grave abuse of the
legal system."

are quite concerning, as is the finding that:

"The Panel concludes that the lawsuits brought by Applicant against
Bob Larson and others were an improper abuse of the legal system.
Applicant brought the cases for improper purposes, and has continued
to attack Mr. Larson injudiciously. "

These are serious findings that involve facts gleened from Ken's
website and previous litigation against Larson. Here in California
the bar has suspended a group of lawyers pending hearing on their
fitness to continue to practice law... on the basis of abuses of the
legal system. Why should abusing the legal system as a student
be overlooked when considering whether to grant the student
a law license?

The panel explained that they found probable cause for the denial of
an application established by evidence which, in the judgment of a
majority of the inquiry panel members, tended to show that the
applicant is not mentally stable or morally or ethically fit to
practice law.

The panel the apparently ordered, per Rule 201.10(5) of the Colorado
Rules of Civil Procedure {On motion of the disciplinary counsel, and
upon a showing of good cause, the hearing panel may require the
applicant to submit to a mental status examination conducted by a
psychiatrist or psychologist,...] Ken (also apparently) refused.

So ,for starters, the report of the Hearing Panel, authored by
Melanie Backes, and a transcript of the hearing Ken participated
in on September 7, 1996 before the bar panel would be
appropriate facts upon which to base a review of Ken's denial
of a license. We know Ken has at least the former, as he has
quoted from it.

These documents also have some likelyhood of shedding light
on Ken's allegation that he "brought witnesses to the proceeding,
but was precluded from presenting them to the Panel. "

-Merlin

mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes:
c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:We don't know. Ken hasn't given us any facts. What he has given usare arguments that a lack of due process is apparent without thefacts. I disagree with that.Did the document at the following URL not have enough facts? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htm
Well... that may depend on your point of view, eh?But, not really, such pleadings are arguments made with selectivefacts.

Isn't this exactly what we expect from an adversary system? That each
side presents the facts as it sees them? No doubt the other side would
have presented facts differently -- that's usually the case in any
dispute. Can you really fault Ken for pleading his own case and leaving
the other side's case up to the other side? Jon Beaver seemsd to have
the expectation that Ken should present facts from the point of view of
the Colorado bar. Is that your expectation too?

What sort of an attorney would Ken be if, after being admitted to the
bar, he insisted on pleading the case of his clients' opponents?
Wouldn't any attorney who did that be in breach of his duty to his
clients?
--
Rahul

In article <bffm4t$8ls$1@blue.rahul.net>,
c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes:c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:>We don't know. Ken hasn't given us any facts. What he has given us>are arguments that a lack of due process is apparent without the>facts. I disagree with that.Did the document at the following URL not have enough facts? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htmWell... that may depend on your point of view, eh?But, not really, such pleadings are arguments made with selectivefacts.Isn't this exactly what we expect from an adversary system? That eachside presents the facts as it sees them? No doubt the other side wouldhave presented facts differently -- that's usually the case in anydispute. Can you really fault Ken for pleading his own case and leavingthe other side's case up to the other side? Jon Beaver seemsd to havethe expectation that Ken should present facts from the point of view ofthe Colorado bar. Is that your expectation too?

I think the expectation is that each side will obviously present facts
that are favorable to them, and/or "neutral" facts in a favorable light,
but that no decision or opinion should be formed on the basis of one
party's assertion of what the facts are. After all, it's an adversary
system, as you note.
What sort of an attorney would Ken be if, after being admitted to thebar, he insisted on pleading the case of his clients' opponents?Wouldn't any attorney who did that be in breach of his duty to hisclients?

Well, it depends. Adverse controlling caselaw, for example, must be cited
by a party's counsel, or else it is an ethical violation.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:19:57 +0000 (UTC),
c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes:c.c.eiftj@WellXXDOES.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:>We don't know. Ken hasn't given us any facts. What he has given us>are arguments that a lack of due process is apparent without the>facts. I disagree with that.Did the document at the following URL not have enough facts? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htmWell... that may depend on your point of view, eh?But, not really, such pleadings are arguments made with selectivefacts.Isn't this exactly what we expect from an adversary system? That eachside presents the facts as it sees them? No doubt the other side wouldhave presented facts differently -- that's usually the case in anydispute. Can you really fault Ken for pleading his own case and leavingthe other side's case up to the other side? Jon Beaver seemsd to havethe expectation that Ken should present facts from the point of view ofthe Colorado bar. Is that your expectation too?

His side of the story is irrelevant as a matter of law. His case
calls for judging THEIR side of the story. He has to plead THEIR side
of the story to do that. But his compulsion to argue made him miss
that point.

- Jon Beaver

Merlin wrote:
"The Panel finds that the manner in which Applicant has chosen to pursue his
continuing crusade to expose Bob Larson reveals a significant lack of judgment
which resulted in a grave abuse of the legal system."
"are quite concerning, as is the finding that: "The Panel concludes that the lawsuits brought by Applicant against Bob
Larson and others were an improper abuse of the legal system. Applicant brought
the cases for improper purposes, and has continued
to attack Mr. Larson injudiciously."
These are serious findings that involve facts gleened from Ken's website and
previous litigation against Larson.

Yeah, they are *quite* serious. Looks like you are quoting points 37 and 39 in
the brief. If Ken did indeed egregiously violate courtroom rules, (causing this
"grave abuse") wouldnt he have been sanctioned/cited...whatever you guys call
it... by the court ?? If that were the case, i'd be among the first to agree he
abused the system since the Court would probably have made a biiiiig deal out
of that. I dont see evidence that is the case.

Anyway, in reprinting points 37 and 39, why *didnt* you include point 38,
which, by saying that two courts upheld the factual/legal merits of his case,
puts a whole different spin on 37 and 39 standing alone:

"38. In reaching her conclusion, Defendant Hargleroad willfully and
intentionally disregarded the opinions of two competent Colorado courts finding
that Plaintiff's action against Larson had both factual and legal merit; thus
as a matter of law, it could not be construed as a "grave abuse" of the legal
system."

Then, there is a section of (21).....

"As a result, Larson sued Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff had abused the
discovery process to obtain information to publicly expose Larson. The matter
was tried in Jefferson County District Court, and Plaintiff prevailed. Larson
appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the trial court's decision was
affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Smith v. Bob Larson Ministries, No.
96CA1556 (Colo. App. Jan. 29, 1998)"

....(20) .....

"While painting a false picture of frugality to the public, Larson lived a
lifestyle bordering on the dissolute, receiving annual personal income from his
"ministry" of roughly $500,000, and borrowing $1,000,000 to buy a vacation
mansion in the Vail Valley. The fruits of Plaintiff's investigation appeared
in various Christian magazines and the NBC television network during 1993 and
1994, and have routinely been used as source material by other journalists
since then."

and (33)

33. The Inquiry Panel Defendants' disapproval of Plaintiff's constitutionally
protected free speech activities is evidenced by Defendant Hargleroad's open
admission that:

The Panel inquired of Applicant why he had continued to publish items on Bob
Larson in 1996 . . . Specifically, he was asked, "Why don't you let go?" Susan
M. Hargleroad, Findings and Conclusions of the Inquiry Panel, Application of
Smith (hereinafter, "Inquiry Panel Report"), Oct. 21, 1998, p. 5.

Any competent attorney would know that Plaintiff is not constitutionally
required to "let go," even if we assume that he chooses not to."


Gosh, Merlin, was Ken Starr required to "let go" of Bill Clinton ?? Is the
National Enquirer required to "let go" of Martha Stewart...what is People
Magazine's obsession with Jennifer Lopez, Brittany Spears or Demi Moore ? What
about Inside Edition's deal with "Wacko Jacko the baby dangler".... and damn
that Sam Donaldson, he thinks he's a regular Bob Woodward somedays. I see
Batman's still fighting The Joker after almost 50 years too !!! ;-)

Of course, if investigators or investigative reporters "who dont let go" cant
meet the character, ethical, mental or fitness requisites to be lawyers in
Colorado either, thats a whole different kettle of fish. I would find that an
interesting position.

So, here we have a radio preacher claiming hes *broke* yet has oodles of cash.
Isnt that a public figure? If elements of Ken's internet aritcles werent
newsworthy, why did NBC broadcast them ?? The preacher "injures" Ken's
reputation somehow and he cant "defend" himself in court ?? Trial courts and
court of appeals, settle the controversy (thats what they do) say the cases had
both legal and factual merit (that point 38 again) and the judge(s) essentially
exonerates (or is that "exculpates") his reputation, but the board examiners
---government agents--- can disregard that ruling and hold it against you (as
if you lost) by deciding the suit was "frivolous action" or "grave abuse" ??
If you, the applicant, disagree--- i can see why you just might want to--- to
whom do you appeal; no evidence you give in your defense will be heard anyway.
(and you thought Leona Helmsley was the "Queen Of Mean")

***PLEASE**** Help me thru that one.

Well, if a lawyer, bar applicant and person that will *never* go to law school,
all file the same lawsuit, all go thru the same process and get the same
decisions, does the bar applicant have equal entitlement under the constitution
as the other two ??

Oh, right. Bad question: No two people are ever equally positioned. Still, I
have to wonder if they are equally *protected.*I keep trying here: Legal
Kindergardens never quit. I wonder if that consistency thru the law applies to
matters of judgements and exonerations of reputations too.

OJ Simpson was "acquitted cuz the glove no fitted" at the end of the day, can
he pass the Bar in Colorado ?? After all, we *do* have a convicted felon there
already. I'm sure The OJ Dream Legal Team would be CHANTING "stare decisis:
gimme a liencess" and find a way to make it stick. What kind of social comedy
is it when we live in a world where posting to website is more of a social
stigma (or sign of mental unfitness) than having FELONY CONVICTION !!!! Of
course, if you dont have any written down guidelines of what is and isnt reason
to examine character and fitness (my crude understanding of point 25).... gosh,
nothing *prevents* a felon from passing C/F...

Now, realistically, this case is all academic to YOU. You guys have passed the
bar. If "they" are gonna take away your "property right" to practice law, it
will only be with one helluva kickin' scratchin' bloody fight. Not all people
are as established as you are. What sincerely worries me about this case is
implications toward any applicant or future applicant. Me, Ted, Monica
Lewinski, Kato Kaylan, God knows _who_ else that goes thru the trouble of law
school, passes thru it and at the end of the rainbow gets smacked by something
that has makes as much sense as "no, because i say no". Of course, i am not a
lawyer. What the hell would i know. IF character and fitness is such a lethal
blow to a person on the eve of starting his "new" career, why isnt it addressed
at ADMISSION to the school in the first place? Yearly, daily, if you get a
divorce, drink some beer, go to a strip club ??

After all, as you say, if "he brought witnesses to the proceeding, but was
precluded from presenting them to the Panel" that has to also include that if
he had a psychiatrist certify him "sane" and the hand picked (well, you get a
choice of their 4) panel's psych guy said "nuts" it really is nothing more than
a kangaroo court. If his side of the story is *irrelevant* in his defense,
then its completely IMPOSSIBLE for him, me, Larry's little boy -- anyone-- to
get past the bar if they disagree with anything about you; for any reason, or
no reason at all--- irrespective of how high in your class you ranked or how
well you did on the exams.

Take it another step then. Can that reasoning spread to Races they dont like ?
Genders ? Religions ? War Protesters ?? When is the process still fair and
where does it become completely arbitrary ??

When does it become unconstitutional ?

But, of course, passing the Bar isnt a matter of grace, is it....

have a GREAT day guys !!!
Chase

Don't expect Merlin, Jon, or any of these jakes to address your
questions, Chase.

"Merlin" seems to think that he can make this problem go away via
sleight of hand. But as that Wyoming court observed, "half the truth
is often a lie in effect." I could as easily accuse 'Merlin', Larry, and
Jon of being cocaine abusers -- if I'm on a bar committee. After all,
I am immune from common-law liability for defamation, and I don't
need no steenkin' facts!

Here's an example of the alleged abuse: Bob Larson accused me
of being behind virtually everything bad that had ever happened to
him since the cancellation of "The Golden Years." I asked Larson
to identify women with whom he had had extramarital relations, as
part of a legitimate attempt to develop an "enemies' list" -- a list of
people who might have done these things (IIRC, including cancel-
lation of his travel plans, or something like that). The court upheld
their refusal, despite the fact that it had a valid legal purpose and a
logical nexus to the case. "Motion denied." Grave abuse, eh?
By stark contrast, I asked for Larson's diary, for the purpose of
gathering contemporaneous evidence as to who he thought might
or might not be responsible for the alleged incidents he might want
to accuse me of. By and through counsel, Larson denied that the
document existed, until I produced a couple of pages of the hand-
written document.

Now, who committed the "grave abuse" -- the bar applicant who
asked a valid question, or the lawyer who suborned perjury?

Not the *lawyer*, right... LOL!

It's really not an issue because the DC said it wasn't, but I think
you get the point. My point is that they were motivated to do me
in, and were pretty much willing to say or do anything to get that
done. Bad motive = unconstitutional action.

Sorry for the primarily top-posting; there isn't a lot I need to add
at any given point.

SolarChase wrote:
Merlin wrote:"The Panel finds that the manner in which Applicant has chosen to pursue his continuing crusade to expose Bob Larson reveals a significant lack of judgment which resulted in a grave abuse of the legal system.""are quite concerning, as is the finding that: "The Panel concludes that the lawsuits brought by Applicant against Bob Larson and others were an improper abuse of the legal system. Applicant brought the cases for improper purposes, and has continued to attack Mr. Larson injudiciously."These are serious findings that involve facts gleened from Ken's website and previous litigation against Larson. Yeah, they are *quite* serious. Looks like you are quoting points 37 and 39 in the brief. If Ken did indeed egregiously violate courtroom rules, (causing this "grave abuse") wouldnt he have been sanctioned/cited...whatever you guys call it... by the court ??

It was never even threatened. Hell, I won most of the discovery
disputes, even before I had to recuse the judge. And you wouldn't
*believe* some of the harassing bull**** opposing counsel pulled....
If that were the case, i'd be among the first to agree he abused the system since the Court would probably have made a biiiiig deal out of that. I dont see evidence that is the case. Anyway, in reprinting points 37 and 39, why *didnt* you include point 38, which, by saying that two courts upheld the factual/legal merits of his case, puts a whole different spin on 37 and 39 standing alone: "38. In reaching her conclusion, Defendant Hargleroad willfully and intentionally disregarded the opinions of two competent Colorado courts finding that Plaintiff's action against Larson had both factual and legal merit; thus as a matter of law, it could not be construed as a "grave abuse" of the legal system." Then, there is a section of (21)..... "As a result, Larson sued Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff had abused the discovery process to obtain information to publicly expose Larson. The matter was tried in Jefferson County District Court, and Plaintiff prevailed. Larson appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the trial court's decision was affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Smith v. Bob Larson Ministries, No. 96CA1556 (Colo. App. Jan. 29, 1998)" ...(20) ..... "While painting a false picture of frugality to the public, Larson lived a lifestyle bordering on the dissolute, receiving annual personal income from his "ministry" of roughly $500,000, and borrowing $1,000,000 to buy a vacation mansion in the Vail Valley. The fruits of Plaintiff's investigation appeared in various Christian magazines and the NBC television network during 1993 and 1994, and have routinely been used as source material by other journalists since then." and (33) 33. The Inquiry Panel Defendants' disapproval of Plaintiff's constitutionally protected free speech activities is evidenced by Defendant Hargleroad's open admission that: The Panel inquired of Applicant why he had continued to publish items on Bob Larson in 1996 . . . Specifically, he was asked, "Why don't you let go?" Susan M. Hargleroad, Findings and Conclusions of the Inquiry Panel, Application of Smith (hereinafter, "Inquiry Panel Report"), Oct. 21, 1998, p. 5. Any competent attorney would know that Plaintiff is not constitutionally required to "let go," even if we assume that he chooses not to." Gosh, Merlin, was Ken Starr required to "let go" of Bill Clinton ?? Is the National Enquirer required to "let go" of Martha Stewart...what is People Magazine's obsession with Jennifer Lopez, Brittany Spears or Demi Moore ? What about Inside Edition's deal with "Wacko Jacko the baby dangler".... and damn that Sam Donaldson, he thinks he's a regular Bob Woodward somedays. I see Batman's still fighting The Joker after almost 50 years too !!! ;-) Of course, if investigators or investigative reporters "who dont let go" cant meet the character, ethical, mental or fitness requisites to be lawyers in Colorado either, thats a whole different kettle of fish. I would find that an interesting position. So, here we have a radio preacher claiming hes *broke* yet has oodles of cash. Isnt that a public figure? If elements of Ken's internet aritcles werent newsworthy, why did NBC broadcast them ?? The preacher "injures" Ken's reputation somehow and he cant "defend" himself in court ?? Trial courts and court of appeals, settle the controversy (thats what they do) say the cases had both legal and factual merit (that point 38 again) and the judge(s) essentially exonerates (or is that "exculpates") his reputation, but the board examiners ---government agents--- can disregard that ruling and hold it against you (as if you lost) by deciding the suit was "frivolous action" or "grave abuse" ?? If you, the applicant, disagree--- i can see why you just might want to--- to whom do you appeal; no evidence you give in your defense will be heard anyway. (and you thought Leona Helmsley was the "Queen Of Mean") ***PLEASE**** Help me thru that one. Well, if a lawyer, bar applicant and person that will *never* go to law school, all file the same lawsuit, all go thru the same process and get the same decisions, does the bar applicant have equal entitlement under the constitution as the other two ?? Oh, right. Bad question: No two people are ever equally positioned. Still, I have to wonder if they are equally *protected.*I keep trying here: Legal Kindergardens never quit. I wonder if that consistency thru the law applies to matters of judgements and exonerations of reputations too. OJ Simpson was "acquitted cuz the glove no fitted" at the end of the day, can he pass the Bar in Colorado ?? After all, we *do* have a convicted felon there already. I'm sure The OJ Dream Legal Team would be CHANTING "stare decisis: gimme a liencess" and find a way to make it stick. What kind of social comedy is it when we live in a world where posting to website is more of a social stigma (or sign of mental unfitness) than having FELONY CONVICTION !!!!

That's because nine out of ten lawyers are cocaine abusers and, if they
are caught, they wouldn't want to lose their licenses, too -- right? LOL!
Of course, if you dont have any written down guidelines of what is and isnt reason to examine character and fitness (my crude understanding of point 25).... gosh, nothing *prevents* a felon from passing C/F... Now, realistically, this case is all academic to YOU. You guys have passed the bar. If "they" are gonna take away your "property right" to practice law, it will only be with one helluva kickin' scratchin' bloody fight. Not all people are as established as you are. What sincerely worries me about this case is implications toward any applicant or future applicant. Me, Ted, Monica Lewinski, Kato Kaylan, God knows _who_ else that goes thru the trouble of law school, passes thru it and at the end of the rainbow gets smacked by something that has makes as much sense as "no, because i say no". Of course, i am not a lawyer. What the hell would i know. IF character and fitness is such a lethal blow to a person on the eve of starting his "new" career, why isnt it addressed at ADMISSION to the school in the first place? Yearly, daily, if you get a divorce, drink some beer, go to a strip club ?? After all, as you say, if "he brought witnesses to the proceeding, but was precluded from presenting them to the Panel" that has to also include that if he had a psychiatrist certify him "sane" and the hand picked (well, you get a choice of their 4) panel's psych guy said "nuts" it really is nothing more than a kangaroo court. If his side of the story is *irrelevant* in his defense, then its completely IMPOSSIBLE for him, me, Larry's little boy -- anyone-- to get past the bar if they disagree with anything about you; for any reason, or no reason at all--- irrespective of how high in your class you ranked or how well you did on the exams. Take it another step then. Can that reasoning spread to Races they dont like ? Genders ? Religions ? War Protesters ?? When is the process still fair and where does it become completely arbitrary ?? When does it become unconstitutional ? But, of course, passing the Bar isnt a matter of grace, is it.... have a GREAT day guys !!! Chase

solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Merlin wrote:"The Panel finds that the manner in which Applicant has chosen to pursue hiscontinuing crusade to expose Bob Larson reveals a significant lack of judgmentwhich resulted in a grave abuse of the legal system.""are quite concerning, as is the finding that: "The Panel concludes that the lawsuits brought by Applicant against BobLarson and others were an improper abuse of the legal system. Applicant broughtthe cases for improper purposes, and has continuedto attack Mr. Larson injudiciously."These are serious findings that involve facts gleened from Ken's website andprevious litigation against Larson.Yeah, they are *quite* serious.

OK then.
Looks like you are quoting points 37 and 39 inthe brief. If Ken did indeed egregiously violate courtroom rules, (causing this"grave abuse") wouldnt he have been sanctioned/cited...whatever you guys callit... by the court ?? If that were the case, i'd be among the first to agree heabused the system since the Court would probably have made a biiiiig deal outof that. I dont see evidence that is the case.

EITHER the relevant information supporting the denial would
appear in the record (which Ken hasn't provided), OR the
appropriate complaint (which Ken Smith didn't make in his
complaint) would be that there were insufficient facts to support
the board's findings. BUT Ken didn't apparently make that
argument, and some might consider that lack as a waiver of
the objection.

In other words, Ken seems to have conceded the legal sufficiency
of the evidence against him. This undercuts any 'as applied'
challenge to Colorado bar admission statutes he might make,
leaving him to argue these laws are unconstitutional on their
face... ie an unconstitutional scheme etc. The USSC case
of DENT previously mentioned illustrates one of the
substantial difficulties of making such a challenge....

What say lets look at Ken's Brief to the CO supreme Court to
see what arguments he did make, hmmmm? Ken doesn't seem
to want to go there. What say Lets look or guess, Ken's choice.

<trims>
OJ Simpson was "acquitted cuz the glove no fitted" at the end of the day, canhe pass the Bar in Colorado ?? After all, we *do* have a convicted felon therealready. I'm sure The OJ Dream Legal Team would be CHANTING "stare decisis:gimme a liencess" and find a way to make it stick.

lol. Yous a funny guy, solarguy.
But it was " If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!", an impeccably
correct statement of the law of that circumstantial case.

In any event, fear not, for (among other reasons)
despite his substantial legal experiences and legendary
athletic skill... OJ Simpson simply does not have the requisite
legal knowledge for a law license.

<trims>
IF character and fitness is such a lethalblow to a person on the eve of starting his "new" career, why isnt it addressedat ADMISSION to the school in the first place?

Are you whining/professing that ignorance of the law should
be a defense to something? Take it up with a Court somewhere,
and please..... let us know how you do.

Otherwise, Why should 'addressing the matter' before an
application is filed be the bar's job. or even appropriate?
Perhaps the prospective student should talk to the school?
Or perhaps even... a (gasp) LAWYER?

In any event, isn't that point irrelevant to the case where the
complained of activity occured while a student? After all,
Professional Responsibility (Ethics) is generally an early
course in school and students are expected to pay SOME
attention in class.

-Merlin

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:25:23 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Don't expect Merlin, Jon, or any of these jakes to address yourquestions, Chase.

Because it's not a "question." It's a contention, and a complaint,
that "lawyers" have more rights to speak out than others.
"Merlin" seems to think that he can make this problem go away viasleight of hand. But as that Wyoming court observed, "half the truthis often a lie in effect."

Yep. So what did they say was the reason for denying you admission to
the bar? That's the other half.

- Jon Beaver

Merlin wrote:
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Merlin wrote:"The Panel finds that the manner in which Applicant has chosen to pursue hiscontinuing crusade to expose Bob Larson reveals a significant lack of judgmentwhich resulted in a grave abuse of the legal system.""are quite concerning, as is the finding that: "The Panel concludes that the lawsuits brought by Applicant against BobLarson and others were an improper abuse of the legal system. Applicant broughtthe cases for improper purposes, and has continuedto attack Mr. Larson injudiciously."These are serious findings that involve facts gleened from Ken's website andprevious litigation against Larson.Yeah, they are *quite* serious. OK then.

If he isn't being sarcastic, I will be. :)
Looks like you are quoting points 37 and 39 inthe brief. If Ken did indeed egregiously violate courtroom rules, (causing this"grave abuse") wouldnt he have been sanctioned/cited...whatever you guys callit... by the court ?? If that were the case, i'd be among the first to agree heabused the system since the Court would probably have made a biiiiig deal outof that. I dont see evidence that is the case. EITHER the relevant information supporting the denial would appear in the record (which Ken hasn't provided),

The "finding" of the hearing panel is likened to an allegation in an
indictment, except that it need only be based on "any evidence" --
and it doesn't even have to be credible. IOW, if a busload of nuns
say the light was red, and a drunken bum claims that it was green,
the "any evidence" standard means they can believe the bum. The
weight and sufficiency of the evidence doesn't matter -- especially
when you aren't allowed to put on any evidence, in any event. No
concessions made. At all.

You assume way too much, and *always* to my detriment.

What's *YOUR* agenda, Merlin?

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Merlin wrote: solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Merlin wrote:
EITHER the relevant information supporting the denial would appear in the record (which Ken hasn't provided), The "finding" of the hearing panel is likened to an allegation in anindictment, except that it need only be based on "any evidence" --and it doesn't even have to be credible.

Boo hoo. OF COURSE the findings are presumed correct...
thats the nature of rule of law, ya blankin wanna be.
What do ye seek? To be a powerful lawyer, who can
(in righteous cause) humble the mighty and make the weak strong....
or an impotent pissant suck-jawed weenie? Geez. How could
you possibly become a lawyer when you spend all your time
sniveling about shoulda woulda coulda instead of focusing
on what IS. My God, he's making me talk like Yoda!
The findings are the findings, so get a clue. Either they are
supported by sufficient evidence or they aren't. You expected,
a rose garden, maybe?

Anyway, you're supposed to know this stuff! Too busy fighting
televangelists while you should have been studying, eh?
Big mistake.

IOW, if a busload of nunssay the light was red, and a drunken bum claims that it was green,the "any evidence" standard means they can believe the bum. Theweight and sufficiency of the evidence doesn't matter -- especiallywhen you aren't allowed to put on any evidence, in any event. Noconcessions made. At all.

Garbage. Where something is to be weighed, THEY decide the
weight, not you. If they believe the bum rather than the nuns,
then thats a decision they have been given to make.

More elementary stuff, Ken. I have NO IDEA how you got
through lawschool showing this level of understanding.
You assume way too much, and *always* to my detriment.

I'm trained to think, not assume, Ken. You need to start
recognizing the difference. Where I must assume, its
law or logic that requires it. Here: A Court's ruling is
presumed correct unless and until the contrary is shown.

So they are presumed right and you are presumed wrong.
Can't handle that? And you wanted to be a lawyer?
What's *YOUR* agenda, Merlin?
I'm not your enemy.
I can't say that what you did was improper, only that a
court said it was sufficient to deny you a license in CO.

I sought sincerely, as part of my usenet time, to
examine your complaints and arguments for merit,
indeed to search for merit if needed. I also sought
to allow you to spar and test your legal skill, and
perhaps to get some feedback.

In the discussion issues have been raised, and I've
tried to engage and provide sincere responses. Others
have done likewise.

But your cites were often inapplicable or inopposite, your
arguments mis-stating the law or frivolous without the
facts to show application to your controversy, and facts were
withheld to mask the true nature of the controversy, which
appears ot be be a simple, rational basis decision based on
(you did not deny) sufficient evidence, determined after
providing you with a full measure of due process.

These techniques you were using were to no avail for two
reasons. First, your case does not support them. Second, the
posters here are LAWYERS, trained to blow though such
pleading and argument devices as though a light fog.
By using these devices inartfully and inappropriately here
you simply ended up exposed rather than exhonorated.

But you are not a lawyer. Might be one some day, who can
say, or maybe not. but at least not today. And contrary to your
misguided belief, you were up against some sharp folks,
experienced lawyers. So there is no dishonor here, and
if you have learned from the discussion, as I have, then you
are the winner. Why else would any of us come?

-Merlin