Chas wrote

"Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*? how droll"


..... and makes ZERO sense.

Solar

in article 2WqdnQr114tEdcKiXTWJiw@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/11/03 12:15 PM:
"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote You have a point, just not the one you were making. Kenny was hoping no one would bring it up though. I have no brief for Ken Smith- don't know him. I just think it's funny that they would require a test almost unique in legal history of him- considering the goofs, jagoffs and mutants they let practice law pretty commonly. That he combines his scholarship with being a CPA- and operates from a position of fiduciary trust, is even more an egregious abuse of power and process. Chas

The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that
there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical
Qualifications) which states:
*
(1)** Applicants must demonstrate that they are mentally stable and morally
and ethically qualified for admission.* Fingerprints may be required of all
applicants.
*
(2)** The Bar Committee may require further evidence of an applicant's
mental stability and moral and ethical qualifications reasonably related to
the standards for admission as it deems appropriate, including a current
mental status examination.* Costs for any mental status examination or for
obtaining any additional information required by the Bar Committee shall be
borne by the applicant.
*
(3)** Applicants must certify that they are in compliance with any child
support order as defined by §26-13-123(a), C.R.S.

Notice that the rule specifically states that the Bar Committee may require
a "current mental status examination," the cost of which is borne by the
applicant.

Larry wrote

"From Mirriam Webster http://www.m-w.com>:

Mental: of or relating to the mind

Fitness: the quality or state of being fit (fit: suitable by nature, sound
physically and mentally)"


ohhhh.....BRAVO !!!!! Now, how about defining "au revior" for the nice people
who cant download your dictionary ???


Solar

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote I doubt if it is virtually unique in the history of the Bar, but it is virtually unique that it was disclosed to the general public, since these proceedings are usually kept confidential. Mr. Smith made the decision to make elements of that proceeding public by his lawsuit and by his numerous messages in this newsgroup.

Do you know of anyone in your profession who was subjected to a request for
mental health evaluation as part of their application to the Bar?
Anyone?
Did you ever hear of anyone so required?
Vague rumor? Urban myth?
Are there a lot of nutters that try to pass the Bar? Is it something they
stay pretty alert for?
Should I be worried as I pass DULaw, for fear of Looney Law Students?

Chas

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:14:29 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:
In article <vluiaqbita3h7d@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith"I find nothing comedic about this saga. Instead, it sounds like aclassic tragic saga, there the tragic flaw of the protagonist of thislittle drama, and that tragic flaw is a series of bad legal decisionsthat led Mr. Smith to the situation in which he is in now, of notbeing able to practice law in his state of residence althoughcompleting most of the requirements for that practice.Maybe so - I could agree this is tragic. But a series of "bad legaldecisions," and "completing MOST of the requirements" certainly does notgive rise to legal recourse, monetary damages, or the grand constitutionaltorts that Ken sees.

For comparison, would you want a neurosurgeon who fulfilled every requirement
necessary to be a neurosurgeon except being of sound mind?
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote As for your statement about "corrupt judges" and your later coarse remark, they are indications of the type of mental stablity that was at issue at your hearing.

He's in JeffCo, Colorado.
You might want to peruse their record prior to assuming that Mr. Smith was
exaggerating; the Columbine Massacre, Sheriff John Stone, Judge Henry Nieto,
Laura Kriho, Steve Gartin, Pautler/ONeal, Quigley/Aaronson, Sheriff Ron
Beckham, Sheriff Cook. It's not just garden variety improprieties, and they
run the gamut of circumstances.
Hopefully, your area is not like that.

Chas

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:42:04 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.
And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the historyof the Bar?Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*?how droll.

It may not be common, but it's right there in the rules.

http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/BLE/Forms/Rules.pdf

RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION
TO THE BAR
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Amended and adopted by the Court, En Banc, on March 21, 2003, effective July 1,
2003

[. . .]

Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications

(1) Applicants must demonstrate that they are mentally stable and morally and
ethically qualified for admission. Fingerprints may be required of all
applicants.

(2) The Bar Committee may require further evidence of an applicant's mental
stability and moral and ethical qualifications reasonably related to the
standards for admission as it deems appropriate, including a current mental
status examination. Costs for any mental status examination or for obtaining any
additional information required by the Bar Committee shall be borne by the
applicant.

(3) Applicants must certify that they are in compliance with any child support
order as defined by §26-13-123(a), C.R.S.

--

Feel free to correct me if this language is a new addition to the admission
rules, a "Ken Smith clause" as it were.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:42:04 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the historyof the Bar?Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*?how droll.

Who said he was "sane enough to be a CPA?"

- Jon Beaver

"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wroteMaybe it's the integrity drilled into him as an accountant that makes him'unfit' for the requirements to be an attorney. Really? What would you know of such things?

I might take a check from an accountant.
Ken claimed to have worked for a big accounting firm. Perhaps you should ask him if it was Authur Andersen LLP before you vouch for him.

'Vouch' what?
You think that Arthur Andersen LLP didn't talk to their lawyers first?
heh.

Chas

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:10:39 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
On what grounds, Ernest? Please be specific. You can start bydefining what "mental fitness to be a lawyer" means -- no one elsecan.

I would imagine that it is what a psychiatrist, using commonly accepted methods
and diagnostic procedures, would determine to be mental fitness.

I would also define it as "that state of mind which is lacking in one who brings
boxes and boxes of documents about Bob Larson to a fitness hearing to prove that
he has no unhealthy obsession."
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications) which states: Notice that the rule specifically states that the Bar Committee may
require a "current mental status examination," the cost of which is borne by the applicant.

I'd still like to hear about it's application (the rule) in the real world
of bar card issuance.
It just smacks of calling people insane when you don't like their politics
or social action agenda. The Bar might well consider litigating for certain
controversies to be pro forma evidence of 'unfitness', as an example.
A refusal to issue should be an appealable question and require due process-
outside of the profession, because it is a government branch and our only
means of petitioning the government as individuals.

Chas

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:15:36 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote You have a point, just not the one you were making. Kenny was hoping no one would bring it up though.I have no brief for Ken Smith- don't know him.I just think it's funny that they would require a test almost unique inlegal history of him- considering the goofs, jagoffs and mutants they letpractice law pretty commonly. That he combines his scholarship with being aCPA- and operates from a position of fiduciary trust, is even more anegregious abuse of power and process.

There you go again, arguing the self-evidence of your argument --
thinking nobody notices that you are referring to "facts" without
actually establishing them. I just think it's funny that you wear
your underwear on the outside considering that your mother is a dwarf.

- Jon Beaver

"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
news:3f5fe25a.33795989@news.sf.sbcglobal.net... "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the
historyof the Bar?Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*?how droll.Chas You have a point, just not the one you were making. Kenny was hoping no one would bring it up though. -Merlin

This is funny. Charles, who doesn't claim to be a lawyer, has shown quite
perceptively how easy it is to figure out, while the zonked out Merlin from
lala land dances around on the head of a pin with the other wacky "angels."

"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
news:3f600e29.45012284@news.sf.sbcglobal.net... "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote Mental fitness is not a "condition" to be "satisfied." It is a status; either you are mentally fit or you aren't. And if you have to ask, you aren't.Maybe it's the integrity drilled into him as an accountant that makes him'unfit' for the requirements to be an attorney.Chas Really? What would you know of such things? Ken claimed to have worked for a big accounting firm. Perhaps you should ask him if it was Authur Andersen LLP before you vouch for him.

I've heard of acts of the agents binding the principal but you out there in
lalaland seem to suggest the acts of the principal may be binding on the
agent. Huh? And who is "Authur"?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:23:55 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote I doubt if it is virtually unique in the history of the Bar, but it is virtually unique that it was disclosed to the general public, since these proceedings are usually kept confidential. Mr. Smith made the decision to make elements of that proceeding public by his lawsuit and by his numerous messages in this newsgroup.Do you know of anyone in your profession who was subjected to a request formental health evaluation as part of their application to the Bar?

First you recite facts not evident, then you pretend to "prove" them
with the old "appeal to ignorance."
Anyone?Did you ever hear of anyone so required?Vague rumor? Urban myth?Are there a lot of nutters that try to pass the Bar? Is it something theystay pretty alert for?Should I be worried as I pass DULaw, for fear of Looney Law Students?

All states require the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate mental
fitness in order to practice law. If there is no contrary evidence, I
see no reason for requiring a mental status examination. But where
the examiners come into possession of information that contradicts
that mental fitness evidence provided by the applicant, I can't
imagine what the argument would be that they shouldn't call upon the
applicant to provide additional evidence, including the obvious -- a
professional evaluation.

- Jon Beaver

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB866CC4.6CCC%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article 2WqdnQr114tEdcKiXTWJiw@comcast.com, Chas at
chas@chasclements.com wrote on 9/11/03 12:15 PM: "Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote You have a point, just not the one you were making. Kenny was hoping no one would bring it up though. I have no brief for Ken Smith- don't know him. I just think it's funny that they would require a test almost unique in legal history of him- considering the goofs, jagoffs and mutants they
let practice law pretty commonly. That he combines his scholarship with
being a CPA- and operates from a position of fiduciary trust, is even more an egregious abuse of power and process. Chas The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications) which states: (1) Applicants must demonstrate that they are mentally stable and morally and ethically qualified for admission. Fingerprints may be required of all applicants.

Whose rule are you quoting here, Colorado's? If the rule is not so unique,
quote it from other states. I have never seen one like it before.

It's a good rule to use to gulag someone where the bar committee considers
itself a court of lofty princes in highback chairs wagging sceptres at
preferred bluebloods and perhaps a few others ---- by their grace and
favor.
(2) The Bar Committee may require further evidence of an applicant's mental stability and moral and ethical qualifications reasonably related
to the standards for admission as it deems appropriate, including a current mental status examination. Costs for any mental status examination or for obtaining any additional information required by the Bar Committee shall
be borne by the applicant. (3) Applicants must certify that they are in compliance with any child support order as defined by §26-13-123(a), C.R.S.

That CRS wouldn't stand for Colorado Revised Statutues, would it? Notice that the rule specifically states that the Bar Committee may
require a "current mental status examination," the cost of which is borne by the applicant.

If courts did their jobs they would view this rule with great suspicion in
light of the Constitution's due process requirements and _Willner vs.
Committee on Character and Fitness._

Patent lawyers as advocates. Gack!

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote in message
news:cd9d8d4b.0309102050.5ac64733@posting.google.c om... "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote in message
news:<ip2cnV2bDKdgfcKiU-KYuQ@comcast.com>... "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado. And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the history of the Bar? Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*? how droll. Chas I doubt if it is virtually unique in the history of the Bar, but it is virtually unique that it was disclosed to the general public, since these proceedings are usually kept confidential. Mr. Smith made the decision to make elements of that proceeding public by his lawsuit and by his numerous messages in this newsgroup.

Kreep Kaldis introduced the controversy to this newsgroup. Get your facts
straight first. You can distort them later.

What does he have to hide, except that he is a whistleblower exposing sleazy
charlatans, like that creep Larson, in the clergy?

And now the anonymous pipsqueak Merlin suggests Ken may be immoral because
he may have worked for Arthur Anderson. Hahahahaha. He's desperate.
You apologists for a suspect Colorado political system which is frightened
(and apparently ashamed) to divulge its lower workings in its inner sanctums
by its upper crust --- you keep me snickering.

"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:u5u0mv8qcrt52a1mibo2llk6pf8mjl85c0@4ax.com... On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:14:29 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:In article <vluiaqbita3h7d@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith"I find nothing comedic about this saga. Instead, it sounds like aclassic tragic saga, there the tragic flaw of the protagonist of thislittle drama, and that tragic flaw is a series of bad legal decisionsthat led Mr. Smith to the situation in which he is in now, of notbeing able to practice law in his state of residence althoughcompleting most of the requirements for that practice.Maybe so - I could agree this is tragic. But a series of "bad legaldecisions," and "completing MOST of the requirements" certainly does notgive rise to legal recourse, monetary damages, or the grand
constitutionaltorts that Ken sees. For comparison, would you want a neurosurgeon who fulfilled every
requirement necessary to be a neurosurgeon except being of sound mind?

What an asinine statement! A candidate for neurosurgery who is non compos
mentis or unfit because of (what?) bipolar disorder or inebriacy would have
been weeded out in medical school or during residency.

Our guy sailed through law school with good academic performance and passed
the bar.

He's a Certified Public Accountant in good standing.

Now all of a sudden he's mentally unfit to practice law in Colorado? Gimme
a break.

Nothing unfit about Ken Smith except that he's a little different from
pipsqueaks like the two wanking lala brothers or dimporch Larry or the old
stiffspine Schaal. And has an intellect they could only dream of. I'd
rather have him as an advocate unlicensed than the whole motley crew of his
dull hecklers, all claiming to be lawyers.

Why don't you all just admit that they didn't really have anything on him
but just gulagged him, Soviet style, with the mental unfitness ruse.

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:dgu0mvgdotrm0irk4ro7v3cfchq2gti1rg@4ax.com... On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:15:36 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote You have a point, just not the one you were making. Kenny was hoping no one would bring it up though.I have no brief for Ken Smith- don't know him.I just think it's funny that they would require a test almost unique inlegal history of him- considering the goofs, jagoffs and mutants they letpractice law pretty commonly. That he combines his scholarship with being
aCPA- and operates from a position of fiduciary trust, is even more anegregious abuse of power and process. There you go again, arguing the self-evidence of your argument -- thinking nobody notices that you are referring to "facts" without actually establishing them.

Practice what you preach, Beavis. You won't, of course.

"Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote in message
news:QwGdnWgIZbzi5P2iXTWJgA@comcast.com... "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote As for your statement about "corrupt judges" and your later coarse remark, they are indications of the type of mental stablity that was at issue at your hearing. He's in JeffCo, Colorado. You might want to peruse their record prior to assuming that Mr. Smith was exaggerating; the Columbine Massacre, Sheriff John Stone, Judge Henry
Nieto, Laura Kriho, Steve Gartin, Pautler/ONeal, Quigley/Aaronson, Sheriff Ron Beckham, Sheriff Cook. It's not just garden variety improprieties, and
they run the gamut of circumstances. Hopefully, your area is not like that.

It might also be a way of life for Ernie in his vicinity, who has a stake in
a grimy status quo, as most old lawyers do.
Chas

And where might Barrist, er, Solicitor Schaal be, practicing condescension
from his lofty garrot?

"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:v9u0mvsin86bupu4srn3ri00u4ik6ghfdg@4ax.com... On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:42:04 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the
historyof the Bar?Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*?how droll. It may not be common, but it's right there in the rules. http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/BLE/Forms/Rules.pdf

So what? That doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional on its face or as
applied. Nor does it mean it's not a cunning tool for weeding out a
candidate who might turn out to be a Darrow or Kunstler or any number of
feisty advocates discommoding to a horde of greedy brahmins. Talk about
private bills of attainder, ruining him forever from applying to the bar of
another state.

Not to mention that the brahmins require the candidate to bear the onerous
costs of the humiliating mental exam. And they get to pick their own
shrink.

It reminds me of the prisoner who gets off the train at the Gulag, where the
warden asks, "What did you do?"

"Absolutely nothing," replies the prisoner.

"How much time did you get?"

"Ten years."

"I don't believe you," the warden snapped. "For absolutely nothing, you
only get five years."
RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO blahblahblah, honkhonkhonkhonkhonk

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote in message
news:6eu0mvskbisjdn83hf7e2u79keil2sv8r9@4ax.com... On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:42:04 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the
historyof the Bar?Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*?how droll. Who said he was "sane enough to be a CPA?" - Jon Beaver

He's presumed sane and you have no evidence to rebut the presumption. And
you are presumed dim.

How 'bout going forward with the evidence if you have any.

Larry Smith wrote:
Merlin wrote: Chas wrote: David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> Mental fitness is not a "condition" to be "satisfied." It is a status;> either you are mentally fit or you aren't. And if you have to ask, you> aren't.
Maybe it's the integrity drilled into him as an accountant that makes him 'unfit' for the requirements to be an attorney.
Really? What would you know of such things?
Ken claimed to have worked for a big accounting firm. Perhaps you should ask him if it was Authur Andersen LLP before you vouch for him.
I've heard of acts of the agents binding the principal but you out there in lalaland seem to suggest the acts of the principal may be binding on the agent. Huh? And who is "Authur"?

He's not in "lalaland". He's up in northern California, land of fruits and
nuts.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote in message
news:cd9d8d4b.0309102131.14a7fb13@posting.google.c om... Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:<3F5F78BA.6D501BF5@concentric.net>... [parts snipped for brevity] Ernest Schaal wrote: True, a request for a mental health examination is unusual in the bar admission process, but there appears to be sufficient concern re the mental health of the applicant. On what grounds, Ernest? Please be specific. You can start by defining what "mental fitness to be a lawyer" means -- no one else can. Mr Smith, clearly you have more information on the facts of this case than I, since my knowledge of the facts is limited to those disclosed in this thread, but there was mention of stalking and harassment. As to what grounds, I bring your attention to the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of the State of Colorado, specifically Rule 201.9 Review by Inquiry Panel, which deals with when "there is probable cause to believe that an applicant is not mentally stable or ethically or morally qualified."

What's their probable cause, that he sued and exposed a scoundrel clergyman?

By the way, Ernest, I couldn't find anything on you in Martindale Hubbell,
although that doesn't mean much, I guess. There's nothing on a Merlin in
M-H either. Or on a ptsc. Or on a dimporch Larry.

Here's one I did find:


Jon P. Beaver
Rocklin, California
(Placer Co.)

Born 1938; Admitted 1970; California State University at Sacramento, B.A.;
McGeorge School of Law, J.D.

Chas wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.
And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the history of the Bar?

While rare, it isn't unique. But his behaviour before the inquiry panel, and
in response to their request, attests reasonable to the fact that their
request was sufficiently justified.
Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*? how droll.

Your accountant can't subpoena you.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:41:48 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications) which states: Notice that the rule specifically states that the Bar Committee mayrequire a "current mental status examination," the cost of which is borne by the applicant.I'd still like to hear about it's application (the rule) in the real worldof bar card issuance.It just smacks of calling people insane when you don't like their politicsor social action agenda. The Bar might well consider litigating for certaincontroversies to be pro forma evidence of 'unfitness', as an example.

We could talk in technical terms about "substantive due process" and
equal protection" requiring a rational basis for the exercise of
governmental power. Instead, let's distinguish between two
hypothetical requirements for the practice of law which, I hope you
agree, are very vague: (1) that applicant be "pretty," and (2) that
the applicant be "smart."

A requirement that an applicant be "pretty" suffers from a fundamental
flaw that "smart" does not -- a complete lack of any rational
connection to a legitimate government objective -- protection of the
public from incompetent or dishonest legal practitioners. In that
case, it simply doesn't matter that it's also difficult to determine
who is "pretty." Physical appearance is simply irrelevant to the
practice of law. A regulation which is "vague" in THAT way, is said
to be void "on it's face."

On the other hand, "smart" does rationally connect to the governmental
objective. Mental resources are relevant. One problem is that
someone -- perhaps someone who is hostile -- has to determine whether
the particular applicant is "smart" within the meaning of the
regulation. But this isn't so difficult as it may seem, though, unlike
"pretty," we have to examine the evidence of the case. There are some
facts that are simply not rationally arguable. An "I.Q." under 50 is
not going to be "smart" enough in anybody's dictionary. If that's the
evidence, it doesn't matter to that applicant whether some evil and
corrupt official might try to say an "I.Q." of 110 isn't good enough.

In Ken's case, we don't know what the evidence was. He is trying to
say that the evidence doesn't matter because the vagueness of "mental
fitness" is of the "pretty" type -- void on it's face. But he's just
wrong. And he's wrong on purpose -- he doesn't want to address the
evidence because it's probably too adverse for argument. He is stuck
with trying to argue around it. If any unfairness has resulted to Ken
from the vagueness of "mental fitness" it's in it's application to his
case. We can't assess that without the evidence. Until then, he has
no legal point to make.
A refusal to issue should be an appealable question and require due process-outside of the profession, because it is a government branch and our onlymeans of petitioning the government as individuals.

Big confabulation, here, Chas.

- Jon Beaver

Larry Smith wrote:
Merlin wrote: Chas wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold,> either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.
And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the history of the Bar? Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*? how droll.
You have a point, just not the one you were making. Kenny was hoping no one would bring it up though.
This is funny. Charles, who doesn't claim to be a lawyer, has shown quite perceptively how easy it is to figure out, while the zonked out Merlin from lala land dances around on the head of a pin with the other wacky "angels."

I told you, he's NOT from "lala land" [Los Angeles]. He's from up around
Sacramento (the state capital), which is over 400 miles away. Perhaps you
have to be here to know, but northern Californians and southern Californians
aren't exactly chums. In fact, he probably considers it an insult for you to
suggest that he's from "lala land".
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Larry Smith wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote:
The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications) which states:
(1) Applicants must demonstrate that they are mentally stable and morally and ethically qualified for admission. Fingerprints may be required of all applicants.
Whose rule are you quoting here, Colorado's? If the rule is not so unique, quote it from other states. I have never seen one like it before.

What, South Carolina doesn't have one? They'll let any old quack practise
down there? Like, say, (I'm sure this shows my age) Clement Haynsworth?
It's a good rule to use to gulag someone where the bar committee considers itself a court of lofty princes in highback chairs wagging sceptres at preferred bluebloods and perhaps a few others ---- by their grace and favor.

They ARE in effect a "court of lofty princes in highback chairs", because of
whom they represent -- the Colorado Supreme Court.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:09:30 -0400, "Larry Smith"
<dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in messagenews:BB866CC4.6CCC%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...
The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications) which states: (1) Applicants must demonstrate that they are mentally stable and morally and ethically qualified for admission. Fingerprints may be required of all applicants.Whose rule are you quoting here, Colorado's? If the rule is not so unique,quote it from other states. I have never seen one like it before.It's a good rule to use to gulag someone where the bar committee considersitself a court of lofty princes in highback chairs wagging sceptres atpreferred bluebloods and perhaps a few others ---- by their grace andfavor.

There is a sense in which all discretion is arbitrary, all decisions
personal. But we can't let fear of the Boogy Man stand in the way of
keeping the peace, running the railroad, and getting the crops in on
time. If Ken has a specific complaint about the application of the
evidence in HIS case to the issue of HIS fitness to practice law, show
us the evidence AND proof that he hasn't already litigated, or had an
opportunity to litigate, the issue. Oh, you don't have that? Then go
away.

- Jon Beaver

Ernest Schaal wrote:
Chas wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
While he must be feeling pain indeed, he's not exactly out in the cold, either. He is an established CPA, and he lives in Evergreen, Colorado.
And subjected to a mental health requirement virtually unique in the history of the Bar? Sane enough to be a CPA and not fit to be a *lawyer*? how droll.
I doubt if it is virtually unique in the history of the Bar, but it is virtually unique that it was disclosed to the general public, since these proceedings are usually kept confidential. Mr. Smith made the decision to make elements of that proceeding public by his lawsuit and by his numerous messages in this newsgroup.

To be sure, he's not the one who brought it into the newsgroups. He did make
it publically available by filing suit, and others later brought it to the
attention of newsgroup readers in response to the repellent nature of Ken's
intemperate expression of his atheism.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Chas wrote:
Should I be worried as I pass DULaw, for fear of Looney Law Students?

If you are now enrolled at DULaw (Ken's Law School alma mater), I would
advise you to (unlike Ken) lay low and just do your work. (Although I
understand that in your case, it might be too late.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Larry Smith wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote:
I doubt if it is virtually unique in the history of the Bar, but it is virtually unique that it was disclosed to the general public, since these proceedings are usually kept confidential. Mr. Smith made the decision to make elements of that proceeding public by his lawsuit and by his numerous messages in this newsgroup.
Kreep Kaldis introduced the controversy to this newsgroup. Get your facts straight first.

But "Kreep" Kaldis did not introduce it into the newsgroups (elsewhere than
in misc.legal). Kaldis picked it up elsewhere, and brought it here in the
(apparently vain) hope that qualified attorneys might be better able to show
Ken the error of his ways. (BTW, you might want to ask Ken who "Doug" is.)
You can distort them later.

You mean, like you do?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

in article vm10gr16432m45@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at
dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/11/03 11:09 PM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message news:BB866CC4.6CCC%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications) which states: (1) Applicants must demonstrate that they are mentally stable and morally and ethically qualified for admission. Fingerprints may be required of all applicants. Whose rule are you quoting here, Colorado's? If the rule is not so unique, quote it from other states. I have never seen one like it before. It's a good rule to use to gulag someone where the bar committee considers itself a court of lofty princes in highback chairs wagging sceptres at preferred bluebloods and perhaps a few others ---- by their grace and favor.

Of course I am quoting the Colorado rules, since it is the Colorado bar that
Mr. Smith failed to be admitted in. The fact that you did not know about ita
before is indicative that you simply have failed to look for the pertinent
law in the matter.

The purpose of the rule that you criticize it to weed out those whose mental
stability is not sufficient for the rigors of the law profession, in order
to protect society as a whole. The legal profession is very demanding
emotionally, as shown by the burnout rate for lawyers. When burnout occurs,
the effect is bad for not only the lawyer, but also for the lawyer's clients
and society as a whole.
(2) The Bar Committee may require further evidence of an applicant's mental stability and moral and ethical qualifications reasonably related to the standards for admission as it deems appropriate, including a current mental status examination. Costs for any mental status examination or for obtaining any additional information required by the Bar Committee shall be borne by the applicant. (3) Applicants must certify that they are in compliance with any child support order as defined by ß26-13-123(a), C.R.S. That CRS wouldn't stand for Colorado Revised Statutues, would it?

Yes it would.
Notice that the rule specifically states that the Bar Committee may require a "current mental status examination," the cost of which is borne by the applicant. If courts did their jobs they would view this rule with great suspicion in light of the Constitution's due process requirements and _Willner vs. Committee on Character and Fitness._

Actually, the rules are the Colorado Supreme Court's rules for the Board of
Law Examiners.

As for the due process requirements, a review of the rules show that there
is a hearing, which is reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court, and which can
be appealed to the US Supreme Court. You might not have liked the outcome of
the review, but there is no indication that due process requirements were
not met.

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wroteDo you know of anyone in your profession who was subjected to a request
formental health evaluation as part of their application to the Bar? First you recite facts not evident, then you pretend to "prove" them with the old "appeal to ignorance."

Actually, I asked a question- that's the squiggly mark at the end of the
sentence.
All states require the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate mental fitness in order to practice law.

And, from Smith's characterization, fail to define what that means in any
meaningful way.
If there is no contrary evidence, I see no reason for requiring a mental status examination. But where the examiners come into possession of information that contradicts that mental fitness evidence provided by the applicant, I can't imagine what the argument would be that they shouldn't call upon the applicant to provide additional evidence, including the obvious -- a professional evaluation.

Smith seems a bit obssessive compulsive, but so do half of the other lawyers
I know. I know guys that bite their nails till they bleed, pull out their
own hair, get pittoriasis rosa at the drop of a hat- and bring a hat with
them.
At the end of it, abuse of process is only possible when you have access to
the process and the power to abuse it. Sure there's a 'rule', sure they have
the 'right' to invoke the rule, sure the rule can be abused by
administrators with an agenda.

Chas

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote While rare, it isn't unique. But his behaviour before the inquiry panel,
and in response to their request, attests reasonable to the fact that their request was sufficiently justified.

Oh poop.
Since when was a display of due diligence a mark against you?
And when was questioning the process before you participate in it a mark of
bad lawyering?
So far, the Respondants seem to have failed to 'justify' their actions; it
looks rigged from the outside.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I might not recognize an obvious sham and
scam by learned men of the law, being all stoopid and stuff.

Chas

in article FqGdnbaAs7EB5v2iU-KYuQ@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/11/03 10:41 PM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote The situation is not so unique. Apparently, it happens often enough that there is a published rule on the matter (Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications) which states: Notice that the rule specifically states that the Bar Committee may require a "current mental status examination," the cost of which is borne by the applicant. I'd still like to hear about it's application (the rule) in the real world of bar card issuance. It just smacks of calling people insane when you don't like their politics or social action agenda. The Bar might well consider litigating for certain controversies to be pro forma evidence of 'unfitness', as an example. A refusal to issue should be an appealable question and require due process- outside of the profession, because it is a government branch and our only means of petitioning the government as individuals.

You have heard about the application of the rule in the real world, in the
case of Ken Smith.

Mr. Smith is not the first one who passed the bar exams but failed to be
admitted, and he probably won't be the last.

As to your remarks about "smacks of calling people insane when you don't
like their politics or social action agenda," what knowledge do you have of
facts that show that politics or social action agenda have anything to do
with this case?

As for your comment that "A refusal to issue should be an appealable
question and require due process outside of the profession" is weird. The
refusal was by the Colorado Supreme Court, and could have been appealed to
the US Supreme Court. If the courts aren't permitted to review this, what
profession should?

Larry Smith,

I assume you are some relation to the bar applicant who failed to be
admitted. I can understand your sympathy for a relation, but I cannot
understand your rudeness. I will not respond in kind, but further rudeness
on your part will cause me to ignore subsequent messages.

in article vm14prt6jfvn93@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at
dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/12/03 12:22 AM:
What's their probable cause, that he sued and exposed a scoundrel clergyman?

All I know about this particular case is what I have read from this
newsgroup and from the copy of the decision that was posted here a few days
ago. I am not going to speculate on what factors caused the panel to request
the exam, but I must admit that the tone of Mr. Smith's messages in this
thread would be cause of concern if I were a bar examiner reviewing his
application.
By the way, Ernest, I couldn't find anything on you in Martindale Hubbell, although that doesn't mean much, I guess. There's nothing on a Merlin in M-H either. Or on a ptsc. Or on a dimporch Larry. Here's one I did find: Jon P. Beaver Rocklin, California (Placer Co.) Born 1938; Admitted 1970; California State University at Sacramento, B.A.; McGeorge School of Law, J.D.

If you want to know if I am licensed by the California bar, check their
website.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote They ARE in effect a "court of lofty princes in highback chairs", because
of whom they represent -- the Colorado Supreme Court.

Yeah; they had to go through a whole reorganization of 'committees' a couple
of years back.
People actually thought 'Grievance Committee' meant they dealt with
grievances against lawyers; hilarious says they.
They locked all the records in the Bar Association vaults, reorganized as
the Attorney Regulatory Counsel, and emerged as a fee arbitration body
mostly.
They did away with the Ethical Canons, and replaced them with the Vague
Suggestions for Professional Stuff, and do even less to police the
profession than before.
And the courts would seem to vett them with rules that were made before the
reorganization, and had required more of the body reviewing cases of
complaints for ethical violations.
And *that's* the model that reviewed Smith?
Puh leeze

Chas

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:32:40 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:u5u0mv8qcrt52a1mibo2llk6pf8mjl85c0@4ax .com... On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:14:29 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:
In article <vluiaqbita3h7d@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith">I find nothing comedic about this saga. Instead, it sounds like a>classic tragic saga, there the tragic flaw of the protagonist of this>little drama, and that tragic flaw is a series of bad legal decisions>that led Mr. Smith to the situation in which he is in now, of not>being able to practice law in his state of residence although>completing most of the requirements for that practice.
Maybe so - I could agree this is tragic. But a series of "bad legaldecisions," and "completing MOST of the requirements" certainly does notgive rise to legal recourse, monetary damages, or the grandconstitutionaltorts that Ken sees.
For comparison, would you want a neurosurgeon who fulfilled everyrequirement necessary to be a neurosurgeon except being of sound mind?
What an asinine statement! A candidate for neurosurgery who is non composmentis or unfit because of (what?) bipolar disorder or inebriacy would havebeen weeded out in medical school or during residency.

Well, that's utter rubbish. There are numerous cases of serial killing doctors
who remained in the profession for years despite being known to have murdered
multiple patients. Dr. Harold Shipman is the most obvious recent example of
such a doctor, but there are certainly others.
Our guy sailed through law school with good academic performance and passedthe bar.
He's a Certified Public Accountant in good standing.

Nobody has accused him of being unable to do math or of maliciously misusing a
double entry ledger. Nor has anyone accused him of being anything less than
scrupulous in his handling of client's money.
Now all of a sudden he's mentally unfit to practice law in Colorado? Gimmea break.

So why didn't he just get a clean bill of health? I frankly don't see any
irreparable harm in a mental status examination. Medical examination of any
kind is one of the six standard vehicles for discovery in any legal proceeding.
Nothing unfit about Ken Smith except that he's a little different frompipsqueaks like the two wanking lala brothers or dimporch Larry or the oldstiffspine Schaal. And has an intellect they could only dream of. I'drather have him as an advocate unlicensed than the whole motley crew of hisdull hecklers, all claiming to be lawyers.

I would not want a lawyer representing me who achieved such absolutely horrible
results before every court he has ever practiced before. If he weren't himself,
he would have a good legal malpractice claim against himself.
Why don't you all just admit that they didn't really have anything on himbut just gulagged him, Soviet style, with the mental unfitness ruse.

If he had been "gulagged" he wouldn't be here. He would be lying dead in a mass
grave somewhere, or working as a slave. Instead he lives in Evergreen,
Colorado, a place beyond the means of the majority of American citziens.
Cry me a river!
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

Chas,

Your message seems full of allegations, but not much else. Clearly, you do
like the law, lawyers, and the legal system, but your complaints about the
"Grievance Committee" have nothing to do with the Board of Bar Examiners.
They are completely different entities.

in article CtudnQgFd7Q_KP2iU-KYvw@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/12/03 2:49 AM:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote They ARE in effect a "court of lofty princes in highback chairs", because of whom they represent -- the Colorado Supreme Court. Yeah; they had to go through a whole reorganization of 'committees' a couple of years back. People actually thought 'Grievance Committee' meant they dealt with grievances against lawyers; hilarious says they. They locked all the records in the Bar Association vaults, reorganized as the Attorney Regulatory Counsel, and emerged as a fee arbitration body mostly. They did away with the Ethical Canons, and replaced them with the Vague Suggestions for Professional Stuff, and do even less to police the profession than before. And the courts would seem to vett them with rules that were made before the reorganization, and had required more of the body reviewing cases of complaints for ethical violations. And *that's* the model that reviewed Smith? Puh leeze Chas

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:54:30 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
Not to mention that the brahmins require the candidate to bear the onerouscosts of the humiliating mental exam. And they get to pick their ownshrink.

Why is a psychiatric examination per se more humiliating than any other medical
examination, such as an orthopedic consultative evaluation for a disability
claimant? Do you think that people who seek psychiatric treatment are some
inferior class of people, such that even a routine psychiatric examination is
"humiliating?"

I think you display your own bigotry here.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

in article j5e1mvghtntnt2c0620phfortpqip0vcq1@4ax.com, ptsc at
ptsc@nowhere.com wrote on 9/12/03 3:03 AM:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:54:30 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote: Not to mention that the brahmins require the candidate to bear the onerous costs of the humiliating mental exam. And they get to pick their own shrink. Why is a psychiatric examination per se more humiliating than any other medical examination, such as an orthopedic consultative evaluation for a disability claimant? Do you think that people who seek psychiatric treatment are some inferior class of people, such that even a routine psychiatric examination is "humiliating?" I think you display your own bigotry here.

One thing interesting is that Mr. Smith is complaining about a "humiliating
mental exam." The exam and its results are not made public, so where is the
"humiliation"?

As to the applicant bearing the cost of the exam, why should the State have
to pay for the expense of the applicant being admitted?

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:10:25 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote:
To be sure, he's not the one who brought it into the newsgroups. He did makeit publically available by filing suit, and others later brought it to theattention of newsgroup readers in response to the repellent nature of Ken'sintemperate expression of his atheism.

This thread is enough of a mess without your crazed, frothing bigotry.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote I'd still like to hear about it's application (the rule) in the real
world of bar card issuance. You have heard about the application of the rule in the real world, in the case of Ken Smith.

And the controversy over it's application is the question, sir.
Mr. Smith is not the first one who passed the bar exams but failed to be admitted, and he probably won't be the last.

For possible mental unfittedness?
Let's hear some background on the use of the rule requirement, the criteria,
the outcomes.....
The *abuse* of the rule is the question.
And I'm inclined to believe him, because I'm familiar with the system to
which he applied- the school he went to, all that.
As to your remarks about "smacks of calling people insane when you don't like their politics or social action agenda," what knowledge do you have
of facts that show that politics or social action agenda have anything to do with this case?

His assertion to the motivation and possible abuse of the process by the
Board is sufficient to examine the question.
Obviously, he has strong spiritual views; he may have aspects of 'accounting
law' that might prove embarrassing- particularly in Jefferson County
Colorado.
You'd have to have watched what happened to Douglas Bruce to really
appreciate how little the political legal machine cares for the least
ethical standard, much less the more stringent.
As for your comment that "A refusal to issue should be an appealable question and require due process outside of the profession" is weird. The refusal was by the Colorado Supreme Court, and could have been appealed to the US Supreme Court. If the courts aren't permitted to review this, what profession should?

Oh, I don't know- we'd have to look into that 'checks and balances' thing
they're so proud of.
Lawyers are supposed to be self-policing and self-regulating; judges are
lawyers; it's one-third of the government.
Seems incestuous somehow.
Whad'd'ya think; civilian review?

Chas

in article eqOcnYhaJsKDJ_2iXTWJjQ@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/12/03 3:08 AM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote I'd still like to hear about it's application (the rule) in the real world of bar card issuance. You have heard about the application of the rule in the real world, in the case of Ken Smith. And the controversy over it's application is the question, sir.

So why do you think it is not "real world"?
Mr. Smith is not the first one who passed the bar exams but failed to be admitted, and he probably won't be the last. For possible mental unfittedness? Let's hear some background on the use of the rule requirement, the criteria, the outcomes..... The *abuse* of the rule is the question. And I'm inclined to believe him, because I'm familiar with the system to which he applied- the school he went to, all that.

True, there have been accusations of "abuse," but I haven't seen any support
for those accusations.
As to your remarks about "smacks of calling people insane when you don't like their politics or social action agenda," what knowledge do you have of facts that show that politics or social action agenda have anything to do with this case? His assertion to the motivation and possible abuse of the process by the Board is sufficient to examine the question. Obviously, he has strong spiritual views; he may have aspects of 'accounting law' that might prove embarrassing- particularly in Jefferson County Colorado. You'd have to have watched what happened to Douglas Bruce to really appreciate how little the political legal machine cares for the least ethical standard, much less the more stringent.

No abuse of the process was shown. He was asked to take an exam that is
required when probable cause of mental instability exists, and he refused,
and he refused to follow the normal appeal route, and now he is complaining
here. Sorry, but I am not impressed.

I feel sorry that he wasted part of his life, but I really can't say that he
had shown any abuse of the process. All he has shown is that he didn't like
that process.
As for your comment that "A refusal to issue should be an appealable question and require due process outside of the profession" is weird. The refusal was by the Colorado Supreme Court, and could have been appealed to the US Supreme Court. If the courts aren't permitted to review this, what profession should? Oh, I don't know- we'd have to look into that 'checks and balances' thing they're so proud of. Lawyers are supposed to be self-policing and self-regulating; judges are lawyers; it's one-third of the government. Seems incestuous somehow. Whad'd'ya think; civilian review?

Laymen on the board of governors is a reality in California. As to the
argument that we ought to disqualify the decision of judges because they are
lawyers is like disqualifying surgeons because they are doctors. It is there
legal training that makes them fit to be judges.

Remember that in this case, it was not the Board of Examiners that made the
final decision, it was the Colorado Supreme Court. Personally, I feel that
the Supreme Court is more qualified to review the case than a non-legal
panel.

Ernest Schaal wrote:
Larry Smith,
I assume you are some relation to the bar applicant who failed to be admitted.

Larry and Ken are not related, as the word is generally used. They might be
related through a common ancestor 8 or 10 or 20 generations ago. On the
other hand, you might have to go all the way back to Adam to find a common
ancestor. God knows, but apparently neither of them are on good speaking
terms with Him.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

ptsc wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ernest Schaal wrote:
To be sure, he's not the one who brought it into the newsgroups. He did make it publically available by filing suit, and others later brought it to the attention of newsgroup readers in response to the repellent nature of Ken's intemperate expression of his atheism.
This thread is enough of a mess without your crazed, frothing bigotry.

What "crazed, frothing bigotry"? If there's any "crazed, frothing" behaviour
here, it certainly isn't coming from me.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:32:35 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wroteDo you know of anyone in your profession who was subjected to a requestformental health evaluation as part of their application to the Bar? First you recite facts not evident, then you pretend to "prove" them with the old "appeal to ignorance."Actually, I asked a question- that's the squiggly mark at the end of thesentence.

Rhetorical question.
All states require the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate mental fitness in order to practice law.And, from Smith's characterization, fail to define what that means in anymeaningful way.

Just because I can't say for sure whether a hyena is a "dog" or a
"cat" doesn't mean I don't know that thing with feathers is neither.
If there is no contrary evidence, I see no reason for requiring a mental status examination. But where the examiners come into possession of information that contradicts that mental fitness evidence provided by the applicant, I can't imagine what the argument would be that they shouldn't call upon the applicant to provide additional evidence, including the obvious -- a professional evaluation.Smith seems a bit obssessive compulsive, but so do half of the other lawyersI know. I know guys that bite their nails till they bleed, pull out theirown hair, get pittoriasis rosa at the drop of a hat- and bring a hat withthem.

You run with the wrong crowd.
At the end of it, abuse of process is only possible when you have access tothe process and the power to abuse it.

Someone like, say, a lawyer.
Sure there's a 'rule', sure they havethe 'right' to invoke the rule, sure the rule can be abused byadministrators with an agenda.

It's possible. So? Show me the animal.

- Jon Beaver

"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:52e1mv4bgn3bdql6tav5u48uek4pgl5sq1@4ax.com... On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:32:40 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net>
wrote:"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:u5u0mv8qcrt52a1mibo2llk6pf8mjl85c0@4ax .com... On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:14:29 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote: >In article <vluiaqbita3h7d@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith" >>I find nothing comedic about this saga. Instead, it sounds like a >>classic tragic saga, there the tragic flaw of the protagonist of this >>little drama, and that tragic flaw is a series of bad legal decisions >>that led Mr. Smith to the situation in which he is in now, of not >>being able to practice law in his state of residence although >>completing most of the requirements for that practice. >Maybe so - I could agree this is tragic. But a series of "bad legal >decisions," and "completing MOST of the requirements" certainly does
not >give rise to legal recourse, monetary damages, or the grandconstitutional >torts that Ken sees. For comparison, would you want a neurosurgeon who fulfilled everyrequirement necessary to be a neurosurgeon except being of sound mind?What an asinine statement! A candidate for neurosurgery who is non
composmentis or unfit because of (what?) bipolar disorder or inebriacy would
havebeen weeded out in medical school or during residency. Well, that's utter rubbish. There are numerous cases of serial killing
doctors


Watch you try to change the perameters of the specific issue here with a
strawman. If a neurosurgery candidate shows evidence of mental unfitness,
he will be extirpated before he gets to the licensing stage.

who remained in the profession for years despite being known to have
murdered multiple patients.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to require you to undergo a psychiatric test to
assure you're not mentally unbalanced, as by saying this it makes me
suspicious that you are suffering from some sort of psychiatric illness.
Get your checkbook ready.


Dr. Harold Shipman is the most obvious recent example of such a doctor, but there are certainly others.Our guy sailed through law school with good academic performance and
passedthe bar.He's a Certified Public Accountant in good standing. Nobody has accused him of being unable to do math or of maliciously
misusing a double entry ledger. Nor has anyone accused him of being anything less
than scrupulous in his handling of client's money.Now all of a sudden he's mentally unfit to practice law in Colorado?
Gimmea break. So why didn't he just get a clean bill of health? I frankly don't see any irreparable harm in a mental status examination. Medical examination of
any kind is one of the six standard vehicles for discovery in any legal
proceeding.

No, it is not; it is quite extraordinary, and in my vicinity you have to get
the judge to order it in writing based on a showing of good cause by motion
and affidavit. I have seen judges turn the motion down more than grant it.
Don't prevaricate, dude. It makes you look to have something at stake in
the matter, an agenda, like Beavis and Butthead's. And if you move for
such an order, you pay for the exam if you get the order.

Now go do penance for your deceit. And for trying to make people think
you're a lawyer instead of a pipsqueak.
Nothing unfit about Ken Smith except that he's a little different frompipsqueaks like the two wanking lala brothers or dimporch Larry or the
oldstiffspine Schaal. And has an intellect they could only dream of. I'drather have him as an advocate unlicensed than the whole motley crew of
hisdull hecklers, all claiming to be lawyers. I would not want a lawyer representing me who achieved such absolutely
horrible results before every court he has ever practiced before.

More lies. He's probably won more cases than you've ever tried, and I
really doubt that anyone who makes such sweeping statements as you is
anything other than a windbag.

If he weren't himself, he would have a good legal malpractice claim against himself.

Well, if he posted tripe like Col. Yuen, then you might have some probable
cause you could hang your dark hopes on, but unless he has a history of
mental disease or treatment for psychiatric problems, you and the bar
examiners in CO don't really have a leg to stand on. Probable cause, my
***.
Why don't you all just admit that they didn't really have anything on himbut just gulagged him, Soviet style, with the mental unfitness ruse. If he had been "gulagged" he wouldn't be here. He would be lying dead in
a mass grave somewhere, or working as a slave.


Shut up. I'm taking a little license here in order to show that the
sanction is quite extreme when a government actor prevents someone from
pursuing his life's avocation after spending so much time, money, and effort
to achieve his professional degree and then the shady actor pretends there
are hearings to review the gulagging when in fact it's a big farce known as
a rubberstamping. And listen to all of you whine, "He didn't appeal to the
Supreme Court!" when none of you have an inkling of knowledge about
petitions for cert before that flock of ostriches. I wouldn't give you 2
hoots in hell for a cert petition, especially since not one has been granted
since Willner, decades ago. Name one, or go hide yourself in shame. The
guy has been exiled from his chosen work, and that means he's been gulagged
if it were done without due process of law required in _Willner,_ and there
is every reason to believe he got the shaft from a gang of official
hooligans practicing the insolence of office from the safety and security of
confidentiality which unduly protects them, not Ken, from humiliation and
review accessible to the public.


Instead he lives in Evergreen, Colorado, a place beyond the means of the majority of American citziens.

No po folks in Evergreen? Sounds like we all should move there and live in
the shelter.
Cry me a river!

You sound like the old kook Ernie Schaal who has concluded, falsely, that
since I have taken Ken Smith's side that I must be a blood relative. Both
of you are pisspoor, not to mention pisspoor advocates.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:41:27 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
Larry Smith,I assume you are some relation to the bar applicant who failed to beadmitted. I can understand your sympathy for a relation, but I cannotunderstand your rudeness. I will not respond in kind, but further rudenesson your part will cause me to ignore subsequent messages.in article vm14prt6jfvn93@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith atdbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/12/03 12:22 AM: What's their probable cause, that he sued and exposed a scoundrel clergyman?All I know about this particular case is what I have read from thisnewsgroup and from the copy of the decision that was posted here a few daysago. I am not going to speculate on what factors caused the panel to requestthe exam, but I must admit that the tone of Mr. Smith's messages in thisthread would be cause of concern if I were a bar examiner reviewing hisapplication. By the way, Ernest, I couldn't find anything on you in Martindale Hubbell, although that doesn't mean much, I guess. There's nothing on a Merlin in M-H either. Or on a ptsc. Or on a dimporch Larry. Here's one I did find: Jon P. Beaver Rocklin, California (Placer Co.) Born 1938; Admitted 1970; California State University at Sacramento, B.A.; McGeorge School of Law, J.D.If you want to know if I am licensed by the California bar, check theirwebsite.

Japan. Cool.


- Jon Beaver

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:49:18 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote They ARE in effect a "court of lofty princes in highback chairs", becauseof whom they represent -- the Colorado Supreme Court.Yeah; they had to go through a whole reorganization of 'committees' a coupleof years back.People actually thought 'Grievance Committee' meant they dealt withgrievances against lawyers; hilarious says they.They locked all the records in the Bar Association vaults, reorganized asthe Attorney Regulatory Counsel, and emerged as a fee arbitration bodymostly.They did away with the Ethical Canons, and replaced them with the VagueSuggestions for Professional Stuff, and do even less to police theprofession than before.And the courts would seem to vett them with rules that were made before thereorganization, and had required more of the body reviewing cases ofcomplaints for ethical violations.And *that's* the model that reviewed Smith?Puh leeze

Then he shouldn't have applied for admission to those filthy animals.

- Jon Beaver

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB86E2CA.6D5C%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article FqGdnbaAs7EB5v2iU-KYuQ@comcast.com, Chas at
chas@chasclements.com wrote on 9/11/03 10:41 PM:
[...] As for your comment that "A refusal to issue should be an appealable question and require due process outside of the profession" is weird. The refusal was by the Colorado Supreme Court, and could have been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

You're being as devious and slick here as Satan himself. He's blushing
because he knows there's not a snowball's chance in hell of getting the
Supreme Court to hear a bar candidate's cry for relief when they haven't
heard more than 3 or 4 during the entire 20th century and that was when they
had a few warm-blooded justices on the high court. I. e., before the
majority grew scales instead of skin.

Even the clerk of the Supreme Court in Washington publishes a booklet in
which he admits that less than 1% of the petitions filed in his office have
a chance of being read by just one Supreme Court Justice.

Gawd damn a mighty, Jaysus! Is there any honest lawyer in this newsgroup
not just sweaty and dripping with body fluids of hypocrisy?



If the courts aren't permitted to review this, what profession should?

I think I -- and the general public -- should be able to see the entire
record in writing and determine for myself whether the suspect gang of
gatekeepers before the law of Colorado are really on the up and up. And as
long as they operate in their tidy secrecy, I can only conclude that they,
like the official bar of South Carolina, and probably many more bar
examiners of other states, are the corrupt flocks of corporate lawyers
which Ralph Nader says they are.

Give me the constituency of those supercilious lawyers and I guarantee you
they will come strutting right out of the pages of Martindale-Hubbell where
the gilded pot-bellies hang out, and there will be one black and one woman
amongst them, one of whom will be a Democrat. For show.

in article vm1jsvhggc5d1f@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at
dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/12/03 4:40 AM:
You're being as devious and slick here as Satan himself. He's blushing because he knows there's not a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Supreme Court to hear a bar candidate's cry for relief when they haven't heard more than 3 or 4 during the entire 20th century and that was when they had a few warm-blooded justices on the high court. I. e., before the majority grew scales instead of skin. Even the clerk of the Supreme Court in Washington publishes a booklet in which he admits that less than 1% of the petitions filed in his office have a chance of being read by just one Supreme Court Justice. Gawd damn a mighty, Jaysus! Is there any honest lawyer in this newsgroup not just sweaty and dripping with body fluids of hypocrisy?

Larry,

I had previously commented on your lack of manners. First you accuse me of
gloating because I expressed sympathy for Ken Smith's plight, now you accuse
me of being devious and slick because I stated the obvious that the decision
of the board of examiners had already been reviewed by the Colorado Supreme
Court, and he could have appealed it to the US Supreme Court. Your last
message shows that not only do you understand the law, you don't understand
common decency either.

I have not responded in kind to your insults, but your last posting was
simply the last straw. I will not be responding to you further since you are
not worthy of any response and are incapable of responding rationally.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB86E8E9.6D99%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article j5e1mvghtntnt2c0620phfortpqip0vcq1@4ax.com, ptsc at ptsc@nowhere.com wrote on 9/12/03 3:03 AM: On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:54:30 -0400, "Larry Smith"
<dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote: Not to mention that the brahmins require the candidate to bear the
onerous costs of the humiliating mental exam. And they get to pick their own shrink. Why is a psychiatric examination per se more humiliating than any other medical examination, such as an orthopedic consultative evaluation for a disability claimant? Do you think that people who seek psychiatric
treatment are some inferior class of people, such that even a routine psychiatric examination is "humiliating?" I think you display your own bigotry here. One thing interesting is that Mr. Smith is complaining about a
"humiliating mental exam." The exam and its results are not made public, so where is
the "humiliation"?

If you are a lawyer you got to be about the dumbest one I've seen yet.
There's not an official document in the world that isn't leaked, including
the employment records and confidential criminal records, officially
"expunged," of Linda Tripp. Are you daft?

Smith of CO (I'm Smith of Carolina) also knows damn well that they were
going to put him with a shrink of their choosing not to help him through but
to shoot him down. As to the applicant bearing the cost of the exam, why should the State
have to pay for the expense of the applicant being admitted?

Hell, Ernie, why not just require ALL the candidates to undergo an
exorbitantly-priced psychiatric examination? Stop every car and search it.
Invade every home looking for dark-skinned terrorists and plastique
explosives. Sounds as reasonable as your ludicrous proposition. It
reminds me of the immediate family being sent a bill for the bullet whenever
a prisoner is executed in China.

That's right, Ernie, make the poor candidate from Evergreen pay for the
hired gun you use to shoot him down. <Uproarious laughter>

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Then he shouldn't have applied for admission to those filthy animals.

They're the only filthy animals we've got.
Or, more precisely; they're all we've got and they're filthy animals,
so-characterized.
And I'm reasonably assured enough to state that I believe we can't be all
that unique in the world.
You know, from the reports that one sees about such things.

Chas

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote> One thing interesting is that Mr. Smith is complaining about a
"humiliating mental exam." The exam and its results are not made public, so where is
the "humiliation"?

Share with us the date of your last one- no details, no content, just the
date- so we know you're not making judgments about something to which you,
yourself, have not submitted.
use the space below:


Chas

in article UVWdnbI2ZYmMRf2iU-KYvA@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/12/03 5:16 AM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote> One thing interesting is that Mr. Smith is complaining about a "humiliating mental exam." The exam and its results are not made public, so where is the "humiliation"? Share with us the date of your last one- no details, no content, just the date- so we know you're not making judgments about something to which you, yourself, have not submitted. use the space below:

I have never given a bar panel probable cause to require one.

Please explain how it humiliates him to take a mental exam whose results are
not disclosed to the general public. Clearly, you are using words for
emotional effect without paying attention to the meaning of those words.

Mr. Ernest, Sir, pontificating from Japan, now would you answer the
question? How do you claim Ken's remedy is before the US Supreme Court
when he has ONLY one chance in 200 of even having the justices call him up
to their marbled, walnutty fortress to argue his case?


"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB8701E5.6DD5%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article vm1jsvhggc5d1f@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/12/03 4:40 AM: You're being as devious and slick here as Satan himself. He's blushing because he knows there's not a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Supreme Court to hear a bar candidate's cry for relief when they haven't heard more than 3 or 4 during the entire 20th century and that was when
they had a few warm-blooded justices on the high court. I. e., before the majority grew scales instead of skin. Even the clerk of the Supreme Court in Washington publishes a booklet in which he admits that less than 1% of the petitions filed in his office
have a chance of being read by just one Supreme Court Justice. Gawd damn a mighty, Jaysus! Is there any honest lawyer in this
newsgroup not just sweaty and dripping with body fluids of hypocrisy? Larry, I had previously commented on your lack of manners. First you accuse me of gloating because I expressed sympathy for Ken Smith's plight, now you
accuse me of being devious and slick because I stated the obvious that the
decision of the board of examiners had already been reviewed by the Colorado
Supreme Court, and he could have appealed it to the US Supreme Court. Your last message shows that not only do you understand the law, you don't
understand common decency either. I have not responded in kind to your insults, but your last posting was simply the last straw. I will not be responding to you further since you
are not worthy of any response and are incapable of responding rationally.

"Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote in message
news:UVWdnbI2ZYmMRf2iU-KYvA@comcast.com... "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote> One thing interesting is that Mr. Smith is complaining about a "humiliating mental exam." The exam and its results are not made public, so where is the "humiliation"? Share with us the date of your last one- no details, no content, just the date- so we know you're not making judgments about something to which you, yourself, have not submitted. use the space below: Chas

Careful, Charles, you will frighten him away as I did. He's right sensitive
and delicate-skinned.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote And the controversy over it's application is the question, sir. So why do you think it is not "real world"?

and why do you continue to ignore the seminal question; selective use,
possibly generated by a knowing abuse of the power entrusted to an examiner?
True, there have been accusations of "abuse," but I haven't seen any
support for those accusations.

The failure to define the conditions, terms, results, implications or
standards for any such 'test'/evaluation.
The failure to show that it wasn't a selective and maliciously initiated
requirement used to refuse the license he had earned. His proofs of
'competence' are pretty damned good- particularly as reflected here. His
detractors are reduced to saying **** like- you knew it was crooked when you
sued them, what'd you expect?
Laymen on the board of governors is a reality in California. As to the argument that we ought to disqualify the decision of judges because they
are lawyers is like disqualifying surgeons because they are doctors. It is
there legal training that makes them fit to be judges.

If law were as complex and yet as well defined as 'surgery', I might find
the argument more suasive. As it is, a dose of common sense couldn't hurt
the legal process one bit.
Remember that in this case, it was not the Board of Examiners that made
the final decision, it was the Colorado Supreme Court. Personally, I feel that the Supreme Court is more qualified to review the case than a non-legal panel.

Had they not ratified the whole dismantling of the 'Grievance Committee' and
the attendant crap that went with it, I might be more receptive to another
view than that they were simply rubberstamping their own guys.
I'd be surprised if that rule had ever been used against anybody but
political/social activists that the Bar thought would go after their
golf/cocktail/client buddies.
Gee; color me cynical.

Chas

in article KZCcneIIl4u8Rv2iU-KYvw@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/12/03 5:29 AM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote And the controversy over it's application is the question, sir. So why do you think it is not "real world"? and why do you continue to ignore the seminal question; selective use, possibly generated by a knowing abuse of the power entrusted to an examiner?

It was only selective in that it was done only when there was probable cause
to believe that mental stability is an issue.

As for the "knowing abuse," you allege it but you show nothing. Instead, all
that has been shown on this thread is that the examiners had the power to
request an exam and they exercised that power, and their exercise of that
power was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court.
True, there have been accusations of "abuse," but I haven't seen any support for those accusations. The failure to define the conditions, terms, results, implications or standards for any such 'test'/evaluation. The failure to show that it wasn't a selective and maliciously initiated requirement used to refuse the license he had earned. His proofs of 'competence' are pretty damned good- particularly as reflected here. His detractors are reduced to saying **** like- you knew it was crooked when you sued them, what'd you expect?

Your allegations are getting a tad weird. Yes, the requirement was not
required of most applicants but then most applicants don't give probable
cause to believe that mental instability exists. There is no indication that
the requirement was maliciously initiated.

As to his having "earned" his license, he had met most but not all of the
requirements.

As for his proofs of "competence," I don't agree with you that they indicate
any error in the panel's decision.

As for your remark " His detractors are reduced to saying **** like- you
knew it was crooked when you sued them, what'd you expect?", that remark is
so off-base as to make me wonder if you have understanding the basic
concepts of law. Unfortunately, it sounds to similar to the common rantings
of internet nuts. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then
stick to the facts and principles of the case.
Laymen on the board of governors is a reality in California. As to the argument that we ought to disqualify the decision of judges because they are lawyers is like disqualifying surgeons because they are doctors. It is there legal training that makes them fit to be judges. If law were as complex and yet as well defined as 'surgery', I might find the argument more suasive. As it is, a dose of common sense couldn't hurt the legal process one bit.

I don't think there was any lack of common sense displayed by the bar
examiners. Instead, based upon his postings on this thread, I think they
probably had legitimate fears for his mental stability and gave him a way of
placating their fears. He decided to refuse, and suffered the consequences.
Remember that in this case, it was not the Board of Examiners that made the final decision, it was the Colorado Supreme Court. Personally, I feel that the Supreme Court is more qualified to review the case than a non-legal panel. Had they not ratified the whole dismantling of the 'Grievance Committee' and the attendant crap that went with it, I might be more receptive to another view than that they were simply rubberstamping their own guys. I'd be surprised if that rule had ever been used against anybody but political/social activists that the Bar thought would go after their golf/cocktail/client buddies. Gee; color me cynical.

Your frequent allusion to the "dismantling of the 'Grievance Committee'
leads me to guess that you probably had an unfavorable outcome in the legal
process and you thought your lawyer was at fault for that unfavorable
outcome and you are unhappy that the state bar did not agree with your
thoughts. Is my guess right?

Chas

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB870872.6DEC%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article UVWdnbI2ZYmMRf2iU-KYvA@comcast.com, Chas at
chas@chasclements.com wrote on 9/12/03 5:16 AM: "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote> One thing interesting is that Mr. Smith is complaining about a
"humiliating mental exam." The exam and its results are not made public, so where is
the "humiliation"? Share with us the date of your last one- no details, no content, just
the date- so we know you're not making judgments about something to which
you, yourself, have not submitted. use the space below: I have never given a bar panel probable cause to require one. Please explain how it humiliates him to take a mental exam whose results
are not disclosed to the general public. Clearly, you are using words for emotional effect without paying attention to the meaning of those words.

A lawyer hereabouts accepted a private reprimand from the bar for failing to
appear in court when his client's case was called. He accepted the private
reprimand on the condition (and on the condition only) that the state bar's
prosecuting lawyer promised the reprimand would remain secret and
confidential. The next day the reprimand was reported in the newspapers.
"Lawyer Disciplined for Failure to Show up at His Client's Trial," the
article said. The private reprimand had been leaked by the very agency,
the State Bar, which promised to keep it secret. The newspaper reported
that the lawyer had failed to show up for court when his case was called,
which was an incomplete account. Making it look like he was unethical,
unconcerned with his client's cause, and a slackard, maybe even a drunken
one.

However, the true facts are that the attorney, now irreparably defamed, had
been in a jury trial in another county and was still there when the instant
case was called. That trial began more than a day before he was supposed
to be at trial in the instant case, and the opposing attorney and the judge
who called his case and then dismissed it due to his absence were also aware
that the attorney was in a jury trial in another county, having been
informed by the attorney's secretary.

The point is, as Linda Tripp, and thousands more can prove, that the promise
of confidentiality is a farce and a sham. There is no such thing as
expunction of records and maintaining secrecy of official records. And the
sooner you admit to it the better for your honesty and candor as an upright
human being instead of a devious one. (Not talking to you, Charles, but to
the slippery character who's fled the debate.)

In well over a decade practicing law I remember over and over again how
sealed juvenile records came UNsealed and how expunging records and
expectation of privacy were a farce. Embarrassing records are only
expunged if they're destroyed and they are NEVER destroyed. I know a judge
whose son, now a member of one of the professions, was a felon, a serial
burglar. I guarantee you HIS criminal and arrest records are destroyed,
but memories like mine and the police officers who arrested him are not.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote Your message seems full of allegations, but not much else.
Actually, I gave a long line of instances specific to Jefferson County
Colorado- the district in which Mr. Smith would have the most immediate
impact. Of course, all those instances were reviewed by higher courts, and
in fact, Henry Nieto was elevated to the Appellate Court.
Clearly, you do like the law, lawyers, and the legal system, but your complaints about the "Grievance Committee" have nothing to do with the Board of Bar Examiners. They are completely different entities.

I remember the reorganization quite vividly- it rippled through the whole
Bar Association, Committees of the Supreme Court and all that.
I've just worked for and around lawyers for some long time now- in a
supporting skill, so I deal with them on another agenda than their
profession per se. I may see them in a more candid context than many people
do.
I actually like them, but I resent the corruption in the system. I joke a
bit about attorneys, but as individuals they are bright, creative and
well-educated people, and I would generally rather work for them than for
lots of other professional 'stereotypes'.

Chas
'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!'
http://www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.net
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/silatknifefighting.htm

in article rJGdne_2df21af2iXTWJkg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/12/03 7:16 AM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote Your message seems full of allegations, but not much else. Actually, I gave a long line of instances specific to Jefferson County Colorado- the district in which Mr. Smith would have the most immediate impact. Of course, all those instances were reviewed by higher courts, and in fact, Henry Nieto was elevated to the Appellate Court.

You mentions supposed instances in Colorado, but it appears that they don't
really relate to the allegations you make in the Smith matter. You allege
abuse of process but don't show how the process was abused in Mr. Smith's
case.

As to the allegations that you allege about lawyers in general, I know
nothing of the facts you allege. Although I know lawyers in Colorado, and
have visited the area, I don't follow your state's politics.
Clearly, you do like the law, lawyers, and the legal system, but your complaints about the "Grievance Committee" have nothing to do with the Board of Bar Examiners. They are completely different entities. I remember the reorganization quite vividly- it rippled through the whole Bar Association, Committees of the Supreme Court and all that. I've just worked for and around lawyers for some long time now- in a supporting skill, so I deal with them on another agenda than their profession per se. I may see them in a more candid context than many people do. I actually like them, but I resent the corruption in the system. I joke a bit about attorneys, but as individuals they are bright, creative and well-educated people, and I would generally rather work for them than for lots of other professional 'stereotypes'.

I agree with you that the grievance system needs to be strengthened, but the
bar admission system could also use improvement in weeding out bad lawyers
in the first place. The results were tragic for Mr. Smith, but if the bar
examiners had lowered their standards and let him in despite their doubts it
would have been bad for the profession and for society as a whole.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB872D40.6E1E%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article rJGdne_2df21af2iXTWJkg@comcast.com, Chas at
chas@chasclements.com wrote on 9/12/03 7:16 AM: "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote Your message seems full of allegations, but not much else. Actually, I gave a long line of instances specific to Jefferson County Colorado- the district in which Mr. Smith would have the most immediate impact. Of course, all those instances were reviewed by higher courts,
and in fact, Henry Nieto was elevated to the Appellate Court. You mentions supposed instances in Colorado, but it appears that they
don't really relate to the allegations you make in the Smith matter. You allege abuse of process but don't show how the process was abused in Mr. Smith's case. As to the allegations that you allege about lawyers in general, I know nothing of the facts you allege. Although I know lawyers in Colorado, and have visited the area, I don't follow your state's politics. Clearly, you do like the law, lawyers, and the legal system, but your complaints about
the "Grievance Committee" have nothing to do with the Board of Bar
Examiners. They are completely different entities. I remember the reorganization quite vividly- it rippled through the
whole Bar Association, Committees of the Supreme Court and all that. I've just
worked for and around lawyers for some long time now- in a supporting skill, so
I deal with them on another agenda than their profession per se. I may see
them in a more candid context than many people do. I actually like them, but I resent the corruption in the system. I joke
a bit about attorneys, but as individuals they are bright, creative and well-educated people, and I would generally rather work for them than
for lots of other professional 'stereotypes'. I agree with you that the grievance system needs to be strengthened, but
the bar admission system could also use improvement in weeding out bad lawyers in the first place. The results were tragic for Mr. Smith, but if the bar examiners had lowered their standards and let him in despite their doubts
it would have been bad for the profession and for society as a whole.

It's bad for the profession and society as a whole for the bar to maintain
secrecy as a pretext for protecting its candidates when in fact the official
bar itself is rotten. What I found with the bar of my state and suspect is
true with many of the bars of other states is that there are 2 sets of
rules, the written one for the unfortunate marks the haughty bar aristocrats
target, either for rejection during the admission process or for discipline
and disbarment later, and quite a different, unwritten, one for the
aristocrats themselves.

If a lawyer is suspended for nonpayment of dues in my state, he must prove
by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that his re-admission is not
detrimental to the bar. This is a recent rule which is utterly irrational,
particularly in view of the bar's practice of letting its nabob buddies
quietly slip back in without having to pay past dues, while requiring others
applying for re-admission to pay all the dues for each and every year they
did not practice and then to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence, an onerous and arbitrary burden of proof, that their readmission
will not harm their smug brethren. Majority caselaw on the subject says
that the only sanction to be applied to members of the bar who have been
suspended for nonpayment of dues is to require them to pay their dues in
order to resume the practice of law. This is North Carolina.

Pick a state. If there is little or no caselaw regarding the state bar's
rulings on admission, membership, fees, discipline, disbarment, and similar
issues involving law licenses, you can bet there is ample skulduggery and a
stench in the capital of that state. Where there is secrecy it will stink.

I call for a three-strikes sanction against Colorado. Its bar procedures
smack of the Soviet Union, it just recently got slapped around by the ACLU
for trying to force students to recite the pledge on pain of punishment or
expulsion, and in Denver the cops for years have stalked, monitored, and
kept "criminal" files on peaceful protesters exercising their rights to free
speech. Many of Denver's own residents have been falsely labeled by its
police as "criminal extremists" simply for exercising their rights of
peaceful protest.

Colorado is full of overstuffed constipated theocrats and far-right,
bigoted wackos. I say: Don't buy anything from Colorado, avoid it like
it's the plague, boycott it, curse it, don't visit Aspen or Vail or spend
money there, spit on it, don't travel through it, and hiss everytime you see
the accursed word, Colorado. When I go to the grocery store, I studiously
avoid buying Colorado-grown greenhouse tomatoes, and you should too.

A boycott can bring a state back into line, just as it did in South
Carolina, which still has a long way to go to abandon the dark ages. In
Georgia, as Howard Zinn described in _Moving Train,_ professional sports
teams lucrative to the economy of the state threatened to pull out of
Atlanta and move elsewhere, frightening the legislature and courts to back
off on their overtly racist policies.

When big brother grows ugly, fight him. Organize and fight him, and where
he is in dictatorial control as he appears to be in Colorado, shut your
billfold and don't spend money there and urge your friends to do the same.
Maybe he'll get the message.

Larry Smith wrote:

"I've heard of acts of the agents binding the principal but you out there in
lalaland seem to suggest the acts of the principal may be binding on the agent.
Huh? And who is "Authur"?"


Must be the French spelling......

Larry Smith wrote:
Mr. Ernest, Sir, pontificating from Japan, [...]

Just because his host (computer host) is in Japan doesn't necessarily mean
that he is.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Larry Smith wrote:
Colorado is full of overstuffed constipated theocrats and far-right, bigoted wackos.

And South Carolina isn't?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

ptsc wrote....

"RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Amended and
adopted by the Court, En Banc, on March 21, 2003, effective July 1,2003"

WOW !!!! Effective this past July. Too bad this wasnt around in 1996 :-)

Ok, gut reaction question: so if Colorado's *old* way was so watertight, why
the change... influenced by the University Of Michigan going before the SCOTUS
?? Nah. Cant be.


"Rule 201.6 Moral and Ethical Qualifications

(1) Applicants must demonstrate that they are mentally stable and morally and
ethically qualified for admission. Fingerprints may be required of all
applicants."

Soooo.. who picks the shrink... and fingerprints ... Why ?? No one would ever
**possibly** advocate a convicted felon getting past the bar to practice
law.... LOL


"(2) The Bar Committee may require further evidence of an applicant's mental
stability and moral and ethical qualifications reasonably related to the
standards for admission as it deems appropriate, including a current mental
status examination. Costs for any mental status examination or for obtaining
any additional information required by the Bar Committee shall be borne by the
applicant."

Wait. I have heard this somewhere before. Somewhere.... sigh, i cant remember.


"(3) Applicants must certify that they are in compliance with any child support
order as defined by §26-13-123(a), C.R.S."

HOLY CATS !!!!! Dammit Ken, if you are behind in your freaking child support
and *THAT* is the missing piece of evidence against you.......


"Feel free to correct me if this language is a new addition to the admission
rules, a "Ken Smith clause" as it were."

Damn spiffy. Is that anything like a Tim Allen movie ???

Solar

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:53:57 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
in article vm1jsvhggc5d1f@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith atdbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/12/03 4:40 AM: You're being as devious and slick here as Satan himself. He's blushing because he knows there's not a snowball's chance in hell of getting the Supreme Court to hear a bar candidate's cry for relief when they haven't heard more than 3 or 4 during the entire 20th century and that was when they had a few warm-blooded justices on the high court. I. e., before the majority grew scales instead of skin. Even the clerk of the Supreme Court in Washington publishes a booklet in which he admits that less than 1% of the petitions filed in his office have a chance of being read by just one Supreme Court Justice. Gawd damn a mighty, Jaysus! Is there any honest lawyer in this newsgroup not just sweaty and dripping with body fluids of hypocrisy?Larry,I had previously commented on your lack of manners. First you accuse me ofgloating because I expressed sympathy for Ken Smith's plight, now you accuseme of being devious and slick because I stated the obvious that the decisionof the board of examiners had already been reviewed by the Colorado SupremeCourt, and he could have appealed it to the US Supreme Court. Your lastmessage shows that not only do you understand the law, you don't understandcommon decency either.I have not responded in kind to your insults, but your last posting wassimply the last straw. I will not be responding to you further since you arenot worthy of any response and are incapable of responding rationally.

Ernest:

Don't let this asshole "Larry Smith" get you down. He's one of those
guys who likes show off around people who don't know he's full of
****. When he runs into someone to knows better, all he knows how to
do is howl insults. I think he's crazier than Ken.

- Jon Beaver

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote Please explain how it humiliates him to take a mental exam whose results
are not disclosed to the general public. Clearly, you are using words for emotional effect without paying attention to the meaning of those words.

The whole idea is humiliating. One is not called upon to prove one's mental
fitness without a stigma.
It's particularly egregious with no proffer of substance to indicate a
mental fitness examination was called for.

Chas

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote It was only selective in that it was done only when there was probable
cause to believe that mental stability is an issue.

What was that 'probable cause'? What were the standards of mental fitness to
which Mr. Smith is compared? What possible reason could such a body have for
intruding into his privacy and intimacy?
.....There is no indication that the requirement was maliciously initiated.

I think that's the whole question of fact to be tried, isn't it?
As to his having "earned" his license, he had met most but not all of the requirements.

It would be the same if they required you to prove you aren't a secret
gambler, or a domestic abuser, or a drug addict- there has to be some
substance to the allegation, you just can't call people 'unfit' without a
proffer of reasonable suspicion
As for your remark " His detractors are reduced to saying **** like- you knew it was crooked when you sued them, what'd you expect?", that remark
is so off-base as to make me wonder if you have understanding the basic concepts of law.

I understand the basic concepts of malice and abuse of power and process;
sure do.
Unfortunately, it sounds to similar to the common rantings of internet nuts. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then stick to the facts and principles of the case.

What stimulates these 'rantings'?
Do you think there is a mass hallucination of corruption in our legal/law
enforcement agencies?
Do you think it's something in the water?
I don't think there was any lack of common sense displayed by the bar examiners. Instead, based upon his postings on this thread, I think they probably had legitimate fears for his mental stability and gave him a way
of placating their fears. He decided to refuse, and suffered the
consequences.

I think they didn't like the direction he was going politically and
socially, and cut his water off when they saw the chance.
I think they required a humiliating examination that any man of reserve and
dignity would refuse without good reason to proceed.
I think the Supreme Court rubberstamped their boys as the judicial system in
the local area is wont to do.
Your frequent allusion to the "dismantling of the 'Grievance Committee' leads me to guess that you probably had an unfavorable outcome in the
legal process and you thought your lawyer was at fault for that unfavorable outcome and you are unhappy that the state bar did not agree with your thoughts. Is my guess right?

No, not all.
I've watched several Grievances go forward though, with an intimate
knowledge of the facts and circumstances. I've not been a principal in any
of the stuff I've watched go forward. My observation of the events were in
an entirely neutral context- although I must admit a certain partisanship to
the plaintiffs in the complaints.
I did see two lawyers disbarred and another fired from partner track at a
very prestigious lawfirm over complaints of misconduct to which I was privy-
it happens sometimes.

Chas

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote You mentions supposed instances in Colorado, but it appears that they
don't really relate to the allegations you make in the Smith matter.

Sure shows an institutional pattern of casual willingness to pervert the
process, stonewall the legal system when convenient, withhold and
manufacture evidence, lie, lie about lying, recast the lies for the
retelling of the lying- in short, precisely the same things that Smith
alleges, precisely where he alleges them to have happened.
I agree with you that the grievance system needs to be strengthened, but
the bar admission system could also use improvement in weeding out bad lawyers in the first place. The results were tragic for Mr. Smith, but if the bar examiners had lowered their standards and let him in despite their doubts
it would have been bad for the profession and for society as a whole.

Oh poop.
I don't agree with his views- I mean I *really* don't agree with his views
<g>
But that's what makes America. If access to the government is restricted to
only those who meet the goodthink standards of the gatekeepers, we're all
diminished.

Chas

In article <A_ecnQWWsuDrrPyiXTWJkg@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<chas@chasclements.com> wrote:The whole idea is humiliating. One is not called upon to prove one's mentalfitness without a stigma.It's particularly egregious with no proffer of substance to indicate amental fitness examination was called for.

This is about as far from reality as can be.

Every bar applicant in every state is "called upon to prove one's mental
fitness." The problem is, for most of us, it's so obvious that a
psychiatrist's opinion is not needed. For others - convicted felons, for
example, it's rather self-selecting, in that not too many even attempt to
become licensed to practice law. But for a few on the borderline, the bar
committee (rather intelligently, IMHO) says "this is a clsoe call. We're
just laypeople, so let's get an expert's point of view on this person's
mental fitness"

It's like prosecuting domestic violence cases. Victims, judges, and/or
defense lawyers will often want me to make them a deal that requires the
defendant to undergo "10 sessions of anger management counseling" or "3
months of weekly threrapy sessions" or something like that instead of
jail. I always refuse to recommend such sentences. I'm not a
psychiatrist or psychologist - how do I know if 10 sessions is what a
particular person needs? Maybe it's more; maybe less. Maybe it should be
weekly; maybe bi-weekly. Maybe individualized counseling; maybe group
therapy. I'm a layperson when it comes to mental health, so I always
respond to such suggestions by say