"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
news:3f638686.19355906@news.sf.sbcglobal.net... "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message I remember right after the ADA was enacted, an FBI agent sued because
hewas fired and he claimed that his gambling addiction caused him to commit robbery (if I remember correctly, bank robbery). The court was not impressed.Now you're talking in hyperbole, Ernest, and that makes me have probablecause you are afflicted with some mental disease. You're brain's malfunctioning again Smith. Check for low battery. -Merlin

You don't have standing to gargalate about someone else's brain, dimwit.
Did you also attend one of the matchbook-advertised lawschools like your
littermate went to?

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB89BC30.7158%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article 3f638686.19355906@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, Merlin at mag@camelot.org wrote on 9/14/03 6:10 AM: "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote: "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message>> I remember right after the ADA was enacted, an FBI agent sued because
he was> fired and he claimed that his gambling addiction caused him to commit> robbery (if I remember correctly, bank robbery). The court was not> impressed.> Now you're talking in hyperbole, Ernest, and that makes me have
probable cause you are afflicted with some mental disease. You're brain's malfunctioning again Smith. Check for low battery. I suggest that you do what I do, which is refuse to feed the troll.

For you, Ernest, a troll is anyone whose message you don't like. My
suggestion is that you have refused to answer searching questions I have put
to you because you are a combination of ineptitude, self-importance, and
cowardice.

Moreover, I notice that you have invaded the thread in order to spin your
own particular interests regarding problems in the California bar with your
copy-and-paste disbarment of the creepy granolaland surrogacy lawyer, for
whatever, if any, relevance it may bear to the thread. Meanwhile you
should perhaps be concerned that the CA bar has an interest in
"decommissioning" senile lawyers, no?

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:bk0alc$nth$1@blue.rahul.net... mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, just before they affirmed the dismissal of his frivolous suit, said that Ken had a right of appeal to the US Supreme Court, but didn't even try. I understand that, according to the rules of the US Supreme Court, "review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." -- Rahul

You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they are in
fact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Court
publishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitions filed
before Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99% of
the petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the "Petition
is denied" on the clerk's stationery.

Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) will tell you the
chances of receiving a hearing in the Rehnquist Court are so remote as to be
negligible. No bar admissions case has gotten past the scrapbaskets in the
high court since _Willner vs. Committee on Character and Fitness,_ a Warren
Court era case requiring due process of law in bar admissions controversies.
_Willner_ is good law only on paper because it is not enforced in any court
in the land, except perhaps to prevent the peremptory firing of
schoolteachers.

In article <vm7kjvgnu7fm80@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith"
<dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:Well, Niepers, maybe we'll never know since the intermediate fed courtsweasel out of reviewingthe question by whining Rooker-Feldman and theSupreme Court is too busy playing ostrich. No help from the weasel courtsin CO either, since their procedure is designed to stifle review and promotesecrecy.

Man, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts
are all out to get Kenny.

In article <bk0alc$nth$1@blue.rahul.net>,
c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, just before they affirmed the dismissal of his frivolous suit, said that Ken had a right of appeal to the US Supreme Court, but didn't even try.I understand that, according to the rules of the US Supreme Court,"review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but ofjudicial discretion."

It is a discretionary appeal to SCOTUS. But they can't exercise their
discretion and hear his case if he doesn't petition for cert. He's simply
being spiteful and playing his part as a martyr. "Oh, I know they'll
never pick my case to hear, so I won't bother trying...."

In article <d097mv8m9mkep2o12j65jm7bkshrgcbbkl@4ax.com>, Robert H. Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:18:53 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Dual jurisdiction. Different crime. Koon's lawyer might have argued it (DJ), as he should, but it doesn't look like even a close call. He got a sweatheart judge on the sentencing though, who apparently gave him every possible break. That did not sit well with a lot of folks who thought a much harsher sentence was called for."nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice putin jeopardy of life or limb,"I hope you can help me understand this stuff, Merlin.1. Which sections of the 5th amendment apply just to the federalgovernment, just to the states, or both.

The 5th as it's written applied only to the federal government. But it's
been incorporated as to the state by the 14th amendment, and caselaw.
2. Is there a good legal precedent for the distinction between an"offense" and a "crime"?

It's all a matter of labels and definitions. Here in New York, an
"offense" can be a felony, a misdemeanor, or a violation. Only the first
two categories are "crimes."
3. What restricts the federal government from passing a zillion lawsthat will enable them to reprosecute anyone who has been acquitted ofsomething in a state court?

If they have jurisdiction, they can do exactly this. But there is no
general federal police power, so absent some explicit constitutional
provision or a nexus to a federal interest, they cannot pass laws
criminalizing "local" crimes - assault, murder, grand larceny,
shoplifting. These are all state crimes. But often, there is dual
jurisdiction - it's a basic tenet of double jeopardy that it's NOT a
violation of double jeopardy for you to be tried once by the state, and
again by the federal government, for the same conduct - as long as there
are both state and federal laws that were (allegedly) violated.

In article <vm7kpkog2dqb5a@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith"
<dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in messagenews:nieporen-3BFD1C.16055413092003@news.fu-berlin.de... In article <3F61CAEC.33A74F12@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Ernest Schaal wrote:>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; selectiveuse,> > 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 probablecause> to believe that mental stability is an issue. What you keep calling "conclusory allegations" are, in fact, evidence. So, you would agree that such a search can be done where there isprobable cause? Would you at least agree here that probable causecannot as a matter of law be satisfied by mere conclusory allegations? Evidence of the kind which supports search warrants every day.Recite these details which would support a search warrant, Niepie. Mycuriosity has been piqued.

"On four occassions I observed the defendant selling drugs from inside 123
Main Street." Totally conclusory. Yet enough for a search warrant.

Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
in article 3f638686.19355906@news.sf.sbcglobal.net, Merlin atmag@camelot.org wrote on 9/14/03 6:10 AM: "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote: "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message>> I remember right after the ADA was enacted, an FBI agent sued because he was> fired and he claimed that his gambling addiction caused him to commit> robbery (if I remember correctly, bank robbery). The court was not> impressed.> Now you're talking in hyperbole, Ernest, and that makes me have probable cause you are afflicted with some mental disease. You're brain's malfunctioning again Smith. Check for low battery.I suggest that you do what I do, which is refuse to feed the troll.

He just gets mean, and then his stomach gurgles.
And he gets gas, and his eyes bug out.
In other words.... nothing changes.

-Merlin
..

Robert H. Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:18:53 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Dual jurisdiction. Different crime. Koon's lawyer might have argued it (DJ), as he should, but it doesn't look like even a close call. He got a sweatheart judge on the sentencing though, who apparently gave him every possible break. That did not sit well with a lot of folks who thought a much harsher sentence was called for."nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice putin jeopardy of life or limb,"I hope you can help me understand this stuff, Merlin.1. Which sections of the 5th amendment apply just to the federalgovernment, just to the states, or both.

which sections? I thought we were talking DJ.
The DJ clause applies to each, as you know.
Benton v Md. (1969) 392 U.S. 925
Just not to both. Bartus v. Illinois (1959) 359 US 121
2. Is there a good legal precedent for the distinction between an"offense" and a "crime"?

I'm not sure of what information you are seeking.
Are you suggesting that the word "offense" might mean
something other than "crime"?

I don't remember seeing such distinction discussed, but I'm
pretty sure it would could have been raised by OJ's lawyers
in the civil case regarding punitive damages if it was viable...

yet as we know, even if it was raised it availeth naught naught,

But that isn't the part of DJ that you should examine in regard
to Koon, who was procecuted under both US criminal law and
CA criminal law.

The state law charges against Koon were assault with a deadly
wapon and excessive use of force by a police officer
The federal criminal statute was 18 USC 242, which is the
criminal counterpart of 42 USC 1983 (the "Civil Rights"
provision under which Ken Simth recently unsuccessfully
sued the Colorado Supreme Ct).

The offenses are actually different, but even if they were
identical, the above cited Bartkus case (see also
Wheeler ( 435 US 313,317)] explains that DJ does not
bar trial in both federal and state courts for the same conduct.
They are different soverigns, both with reasons for enforcing
their laws.

As you also know, what the founding fathers really meant
is naught compared to what the USSC says they meant.
3. What restricts the federal government from passing a zillion lawsthat will enable them to reprosecute anyone who has been acquitted ofsomething in a state court?

Considering the rate at which the feds are criminalizing conduct
that used to be the province of the states, that day will not be
long coming.

Under the current interpretation, the DJ clause provides no
help. Federalism is of possible value (Lopez).
But several other important safeguards remain.

(1) You. So keep your wits about you, it could save you.
(2) The Supreme Court. So be careful who you put there.
(3) The House and Senate. Be careful who you put there too.
(4) Your President. (We already know how I feel about the shrub.)
OK he's my President too (gag). I wish you people would be
more careful who you put there! Hey!

If you want to consider prosecuting people twice under
state law, for mistrials and such, you should ask Larry
the ADA. He would know those rules in detail.

Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
The issue was raised of whether or not the First Amendment prevented statedbeliefs from being used as evidence.Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), the Supreme Court found that theFirst Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establishthe elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent.

Its was never in doubt... not even for one of them NY nanoseconds.
But I can hardly wait for Kenny's screams when he reads it.
"The scum-suckers have it in for me! They're all conspiring
to humiliate me (sob, sob) "

There, there Kenny. There, there.

-Merlin

"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
Now you're talking in hyperbole, Ernest, and that makes me have probablecause you are afflicted with some mental disease. You're brain's malfunctioning again Smith. Check for low battery. -MerlinYou don't have standing to gargalate about someone else's brain, dimwit.Did you also attend one of the matchbook-advertised lawschools like yourlittermate went to?

Well... it could be something simple, like electrolyte imbalance.
Try adding water

"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in messagenews:bk0alc$nth$1@blue.rahul.net... mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, just before they affirmed the dismissal of his frivolous suit, said that Ken had a right of appeal to the US Supreme Court, but didn't even try. I understand that, according to the rules of the US Supreme Court, "review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." -- RahulYou are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they are infact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Courtpublishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitions filedbefore Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99% ofthe petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the "Petitionis denied" on the clerk's stationery. Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) will tell you thechances of receiving a hearing in the Rehnquist Court are so remote as to benegligible. No bar admissions case has gotten past the scrapbaskets in thehigh court since _Willner vs. Committee on Character and Fitness,_ a WarrenCourt era case requiring due process of law in bar admissions controversies._Willner_ is good law only on paper because it is not enforced in any courtin the land, except perhaps to prevent the peremptory firing ofschoolteachers.

But.. Ken didn't even TRY!
I mean, thje guys too lazy even to try?
And he wants to represent others in legal proceedings?
Oh, Shame! Shame!

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:21:30 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they are infact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Courtpublishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitions filedbefore Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99% ofthe petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the "Petitionis denied" on the clerk's stationery.

"Confesses" mischaracterizes it. It is a simple statement of fact.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

<snipped>
> > I've been toying with the idea of posting a message comparing certain> > aspects of the Christian idea of deity to the profile of a stalker.>> Such an idea is the product of a demented mind,

Such an idea was the product of sun affected desert nomads.

--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/

Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov

Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:53:16 +0000 (UTC),
c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, just before they affirmed the dismissal of his frivolous suit, said that Ken had a right of appeal to the US Supreme Court, but didn't even try.I understand that, according to the rules of the US Supreme Court,"review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but ofjudicial discretion."

True, but what turns on that?


- Jon Beaver

Merlin wrote:
Robert H. Risch wrote: SolarChase wrote: Ted wrote
> Yes. He had already been acquitted in stste court. Despite all the> politically inspired equivocation, the federal charges represented> double jeopardy.
Fair enough, i wasnt starting a new thread, just curious of reactions since it got brought up.
I'll start the new thread. The fact that SCOTUS didn't regard prosecuting someone for a civil rights violation as unconstitutional, when that person was acquitted when the same offense was called assault, was encouraging to me, in a way. Maybe if some state or the federal government would start trying criminal and civil cases via a panel of lay and professional judges, and call it a jury trial, the Supreme Court would go along.
Dual jurisdiction. Different crime.

Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple.
Koon's lawyer might have argued it (DJ), as he should, but it doesn't look like even a close call.

Only because of the sorry state of the American legal system these days. As
Ken suggests, the Bill of Rights has become a piece of toilet paper. (Not
that I'm taking Ken's side, mind you. Ken is only pretending to be standing
up for the Bill of Rights. But Ken what is really trying to do is to cover
his own narrow @ss.)
He got a sweatheart judge on the sentencing though, who apparently gave him every possible break.

He had already gotten a much sweeter break from the Simi Valley jury.
That did not sit well with a lot of folks who thought a much harsher sentence was called for.

Yeah, well, that's when happens when the case has already been tried in the
media.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Larry Smith wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote:
Actually, the reason I had assumed that the two Smiths were related was that Larry Smith was as flaming angry in his messages and Ken Smith.
You gonna be a wannabe shrink now, Ernie, and utter a diagnosis? I hope it's not as kooky as your deduction that Ken and I are related.

You are. Maybe not through blood, but certainly by temperment.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Larry Smith wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote: Merlin wrote:
You're brain's malfunctioning again Smith. Check for low battery.
I suggest that you do what I do, which is refuse to feed the troll.
For you, Ernest, a troll is anyone whose message you don't like. My suggestion is that you have refused to answer searching questions I have put to you because you are a combination of ineptitude, self-importance, and cowardice.

This presumes that you have actually put some "answer searching questions" to
him -- an assertion certainly not in evidence here.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Larry Smith wrote:
Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...]

Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0398mvcl5c9464jbguj4791vablbpd7src@4ax.com... On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:21:30 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net>
wrote:You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they are
infact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Courtpublishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitions
filedbefore Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99%
ofthe petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the
"Petitionis denied" on the clerk's stationery. "Confesses" mischaracterizes it. It is a simple statement of fact.

It's a confession and a warning, "Abandon hope, all ye who wish to enter
here."

Larry Smith wrote:
ptsc wrote: Larry Smith wrote:
You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they are in fact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Court publishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitions filed before Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99% of the petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the "Petition is denied" on the clerk's stationery.
"Confesses" mischaracterizes it. It is a simple statement of fact.
It's a confession and a warning, "Abandon hope, all ye who wish to enter here."

You allow your prejudices to influence your perspective. Therefore, your
accounts are unreliable.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:0398mvcl5c9464jbguj4791vablbpd7src@4ax .com... On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:21:30 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net>wrote:You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they areinfact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Courtpublishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitionsfiledbefore Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99%ofthe petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the"Petitionis denied" on the clerk's stationery. "Confesses" mischaracterizes it. It is a simple statement of fact.It's a confession and a warning, "Abandon hope, all ye who wish to enterhere."
Then I guess its best to maintain good working relations with the
lower courts, eh? And calling them "the wild pack of lawless
maurading coke-snorting buggerboyz of the Denver Athletic Club",
or the like, just isn't going to be accomplishing that, huh?

Even if Ken couldn't help himself, Smith, when its just his own
life at stake, that's one thing. When its someone else's life in
his hands, someone looking to him to skillfully and successfully
guide them throught a most desperate hour.... then that's a
pretty much a great horse of a different f'king feather, wouldn't
you say so, Smith?

So in sum, the Supreme Court of Colorado correctly decided
that they shouldn't be handing out law licenses as cracker-jack
prizes to whackos, like the one Kenny says you have.

I rest my heavy case upon your foot.

-Merlin

In article <3F646EC3.615395C@worldnet.att.net>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Merlin wrote: Robert H. Risch wrote: SolarChase wrote:> Ted wrote>> Yes. He had already been acquitted in stste court. Despite all the>> politically inspired equivocation, the federal charges represented>> double jeopardy.> Fair enough, i wasnt starting a new thread, just curious of reactions> since it got brought up. I'll start the new thread. The fact that SCOTUS didn't regard prosecuting someone for a civil rights violation as unconstitutional, when that person was acquitted when the same offense was called assault, was encouraging to me, in a way. Maybe if some state or the federal government would start trying criminal and civil cases via a panel of lay and professional judges, and call it a jury trial, the Supreme Court would go along. Dual jurisdiction. Different crime.Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple.

The state doesn't get another bite. The state gets one bite, and another
state or the federal government may get a bite, as well. Each sovereign
which has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdiction
to prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating double
jeopardy.

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Man, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts are all out to get Kenny.

It does.
And they're not 'unrelated'.
This is a big state (Colorado), but it's population is mostly in the main
city, Denver. The courts are intertwined like you wouldn't believe.
Courthouse gossip moves *so* quickly (over a few blocks in each direction)
that information is *everywhere* in an instant.
Judges often seem to get 'petty'- reaching from one jurisdiction to another
to follow a defendant or complainant. Even moreso the
'prosecutors'/administrators. Denver is part of a 'Multi-jurisdictional Task
Force' and there is instant communications between various jurisdictions
about agitators and malcontents. The Denver Police Department spy files
scandal was just the tip of the unvetted and raw data transmission between
agencies.

Chas

In article <vm8tq1h89l3810@corp.supernews.com>, "Larry Smith"
<dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:
"ptsc" <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:0398mvcl5c9464jbguj4791vablbpd7src@4ax .com... On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:21:30 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net>wrote:You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they areinfact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Courtpublishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitionsfiledbefore Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99%ofthe petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the"Petitionis denied" on the clerk's stationery. "Confesses" mischaracterizes it. It is a simple statement of fact.It's a confession and a warning, "Abandon hope, all ye who wish to enterhere."

It is neither a confession nor a warning. After all, SCOTUS hears _some
number_ of cases, and those cases can only come from the pool of
appellants who have petioned for cert, right?

What do you propose anyway, appeal as of right to SCOTUS? One already has
an appeal as of right to the intermediate courts of appeal, no?

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F63D53F.6578B14A@worldnet.att.net>... Fluffygirl wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: ptsc wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:>> Let me put this another way: How do you think *you* would fare if Greta>> Van Susteren and a few of her friends were sitting in judgment of YOUR>> C&F review?> It is more likely that it would be Greta van Susteren sitting in front of> a bar disciplinary committee herself, seeing as it has already happened> to both her and her husband.> <http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs%5Cfall96%5C22700.htm>> The firm headed by Susteren, her husband John Coale (who recently> handled Lisa Marie Presley's divorce from Michael Jackson) and their> former law partner Phillip Allen illegally contacted families of> West Virginians injured in accidents between 1990 and 1993, the> state's Lawyer Disciplinary Board contends. In one incident, the> Charleston Daily Mail reported, a firm employee, over the protests> of the accident victim's wife, tried to enter a hospital intensive> care unit to talk to a man who suffered burns over 60 percent of his> body. "We don't do these things in West Virginia," state bar lawyer> Sherri Goodman told the paper." [Yeah, right. Tell me about it. They only do such things in Arkansas.] So Greta van Susteren is an ambulance-chaser from West Virginia? Oh well, what do you expect? I hear she's a $cientologist. So? So she's duped by a money-making operation -- a scam. I'm a Scientologist too. I feel sorry for you. Did you know that L. Ron Hubbard, then a second-rate science-fiction writer originally invented scientology as a mock-religion to show how easy it was to invent one, and to attempt to thereby demonstrate that all religions are man-made creations? But, once he got into it, he discovered that it was a pretty good racket -- MUCH more money in it than in writing bad science-fiction, so he ran with it.

Yes, dear, I know. <yawn>
And I also work in the legal field (albeit not as an attorney, What then? A legal secretary?

No. Had that been the case (not that they're still called that, you
know) my descriptions of what I do/have done would not have applied.

But thanks for asking!


C

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:53:06 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:
Dual jurisdiction. Different crime.Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple.The state doesn't get another bite. The state gets one bite, and anotherstate or the federal government may get a bite, as well. Each sovereignwhich has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdictionto prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating doublejeopardy.

In other words, no matter what cockamamie interpretation of,

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb,"

is current, Larry will be an apologist for it. That is the way for an
ADA to accumulate brownie points.

RHR

On 14 Sep 2003 10:22:14 -0700, amafluffygirl@yahoo.com (Fluffygirl) wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F63D53F.6578B14A@worldnet.att.net>...
I feel sorry for you. Did you know that L. Ron Hubbard, then a second-rate science-fiction writer originally invented scientology as a mock-religion to show how easy it was to invent one, and to attempt to thereby demonstrate that all religions are man-made creations? But, once he got into it, he discovered that it was a pretty good racket -- MUCH more money in it than in writing bad science-fiction, so he ran with it.
Yes, dear, I know. <yawn>

I wouldn't take this nut seriously, Fluffy. Here is the sort of insane ranting
he considers to be expressing his "religious beliefs." If you type "Ted Kaldis"
and "tire iron" into Google Groups, you can also find numerous instances where
he discusses having lent a tire iron to some thugs he was hanging out with so
they could go "roll queers." Here's a sample: http://tinyurl.com/nbzx

Now, he thinks Jebus will do his queer bashing for him.

NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:03:40 -0500
Message-ID: <3F38E5EE.38DFF628@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:04:46 -0700
From: "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: kaldis@comcast.net
Organization: TransPacific Transit Corp.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Uh-Oh, Miss Vermont, You've Awakened a Sleeping Giant and Filled
Him
with a Terrible Resolve
References: <vjdvec3n9d6oeb@corp.supernews.com>
<none-1108030625030001@192.168.2.4> <vjgj8al0sao8ed@corp.supernews.com>
<3F385767.7CDED3A4@worldnet.att.net> <3F386693.6D63E7FE@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
X-Trace:
sv3-X36qVZM07lRgwg4PXEL6eFo+Qm03iaPCZQ2BmLzaq7WvktRoIC hTl+5gRGYm3KpZjc/eq1oLFej5sAH!UWIT0QPXPuVuQT3HN26b+KQGy+j8N3bSDYTdn 7KhWsLqI5Uiuoa5sX0/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1


Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Sorry, I don't see anything funny here.
We find hypocrisy funny, Ted. You find it to be a way of life.

But you won't be laughing when you stand before God at the Final Judgement.
For (assuming she has a relationship with Jesus Christ) she will be received
into heaven for an eternity of bliss, while you will be cast into the Lake of
Fire for an eternity of damnation and torment (lest you receive Jesus Christ
as your Saviour in the meanwhile).
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

---

L. Ron Hubbard is sane by comparison.
--
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net

in article 3F646EFA.394DD118@worldnet.att.net, Theodore A. Kaldis at
kaldis@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/14/03 10:36 PM:
Larry Smith wrote: Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...] Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise.

But he isn't an attorney, is he?

I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in North
Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is no
Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership
directory.

Larry wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Merlin wrote:
Dual jurisdiction. Different crime.
Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple.
The state doesn't get another bite. The state gets one bite, and another state or the federal government may get a bite, as well.

Yes, I'm aware of the distinction. I'm talking about the state in general
here, whether it happens to be the State of California in one instance, and
the United States of America in the other. But they only get a second bite
by violating the Bill of Rights.
Each sovereign which has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating double jeopardy.

No, sorry, this is not true. When you say "can do so without it implicating
double jeopardy", you are engaging in equivocation. It isn't a "different"
crime, it is the same crime by a different name. The courts are playing
legal hocus pocus in order to achieve a desired result. The Framers of the
Bill of Rights would be horrified.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Chas wrote:
Larry wrote:
Man, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts are all out to get Kenny.
It does.
And they're not 'unrelated'.
This is a big state (Colorado), but it's population is mostly in the main city, Denver. The courts are intertwined like you wouldn't believe. Courthouse gossip moves *so* quickly (over a few blocks in each direction) that information is *everywhere* in an instant.
Judges often seem to get 'petty'- reaching from one jurisdiction to another to follow a defendant or complainant. Even moreso the 'prosecutors'/ administrators. Denver is part of a 'Multi-jurisdictional Task Force' and there is instant communications between various jurisdictions about agitators and malcontents.

And if Ken Smith isn't a malcontent, then who is???
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Ernest Schaal wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Larry Smith wrote:
Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...]
Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise.
But he isn't an attorney, is he?
I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in North Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is no Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership directory.

Did you look at South Carolina as well? He has at times said he's "of
Carolina" (not specifying whether North or South), and he's also talked of
events in South Carolina.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Ernest Schaal wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Larry Smith wrote:
Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...]
Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise.
But he isn't an attorney, is he?
I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in North Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is no Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership directory.

Actually I just looked at South Carolina, and there IS a Larry Smith there.
Went to Law School in North Carolina, practises in South. Could this be our
Larry?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

in article 3F64D1FF.27F57426@worldnet.att.net, Theodore A. Kaldis at
kaldis@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/15/03 5:39 AM:
Ernest Schaal wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Larry Smith wrote:> Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...] Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise. But he isn't an attorney, is he? I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in North Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is no Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership directory. Did you look at South Carolina as well? He has at times said he's "of Carolina" (not specifying whether North or South), and he's also talked of events in South Carolina.

On September 11th, he specifically stated that North Carolina was his state.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB8B0606.7275%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article 3F64D1FF.27F57426@worldnet.att.net, Theodore A. Kaldis at kaldis@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/15/03 5:39 AM: Ernest Schaal wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> Larry Smith wrote:>> Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...]> Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise. But he isn't an attorney, is he? I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in
North Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is
no Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership directory. Did you look at South Carolina as well? He has at times said he's "of Carolina" (not specifying whether North or South), and he's also talked
of events in South Carolina. On September 11th, he specifically stated that North Carolina was his
state.

Ernest is not in Martindale-Hubbell, from which one could infer just as
logically that he is a fraud, or disbarred.

in article vm9mfvkesnlkdf@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at
dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/15/03 6:13 AM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message news:BB8B0606.7275%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article 3F64D1FF.27F57426@worldnet.att.net, Theodore A. Kaldis at kaldis@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/15/03 5:39 AM: Ernest Schaal wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> Larry Smith wrote:>>>>> Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...]>>>> Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise.>> But he isn't an attorney, is he?>> I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in North> Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is no> Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership> directory. Did you look at South Carolina as well? He has at times said he's "of Carolina" (not specifying whether North or South), and he's also talked of events in South Carolina. On September 11th, he specifically stated that North Carolina was his state. Ernest is not in Martindale-Hubbell, from which one could infer just as logically that he is a fraud, or disbarred.

I was never going to respond to you, but this is an exception.

If you were really an attorney, you would know that a listing in
Martindale-Hubbell is discretionary, but membership of the state bar is not
discretionary in those states having a unified bar (which includes North
Carolina).

in article BB8B0AC3.727B%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp, Ernest Schaal at
eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp wrote on 9/15/03 6:20 AM:
in article vm9mfvkesnlkdf@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/15/03 6:13 AM: "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message news:BB8B0606.7275%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article 3F64D1FF.27F57426@worldnet.att.net, Theodore A. Kaldis at kaldis@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/15/03 5:39 AM:> Ernest Schaal wrote:>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>>> Larry Smith wrote:>>>>>>> Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...]>>>>>> Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise.>>>> But he isn't an attorney, is he?>>>> I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in North>> Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is no>> Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership>> directory.>> Did you look at South Carolina as well? He has at times said he's "of> Carolina" (not specifying whether North or South), and he's also talked of> events in South Carolina. On September 11th, he specifically stated that North Carolina was his state. Ernest is not in Martindale-Hubbell, from which one could infer just as logically that he is a fraud, or disbarred. I was never going to respond to you, but this is an exception. If you were really an attorney, you would know that a listing in Martindale-Hubbell is discretionary, but membership of the state bar is not discretionary in those states having a unified bar (which includes North Carolina).

Just for fun, I checked Martindale-Hubbell and there is no Larry Smith
listed in North Carolina OR South Carolina, but of course that proves
nothing.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:BB8B0AC3.727B%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article vm9mfvkesnlkdf@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/15/03 6:13 AM: "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message news:BB8B0606.7275%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp... in article 3F64D1FF.27F57426@worldnet.att.net, Theodore A. Kaldis at kaldis@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/15/03 5:39 AM:> Ernest Schaal wrote:>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>>> Larry Smith wrote:>>>>>>> Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...]>>>>>> Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise.>>>> But he isn't an attorney, is he?>>>> I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in
North>> Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is
no>> Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership>> directory.>> Did you look at South Carolina as well? He has at times said he's "of> Carolina" (not specifying whether North or South), and he's also
talked of> events in South Carolina. On September 11th, he specifically stated that North Carolina was his
state. Ernest is not in Martindale-Hubbell, from which one could infer just as logically that he is a fraud, or disbarred. I was never going to respond to you, but this is an exception. If you were really an attorney, you would know that a listing in Martindale-Hubbell is discretionary, but membership of the state bar is
not discretionary in those states having a unified bar (which includes North Carolina).

You're not getting it, Ernie. I'm saying that I could just as readily make
logical conclusions (using your senile logic, of course) on the information
available that you are a fake or disbarred.

As for M-H it once proclaimed that its pages contained the names of ALL the
states' lawyers, not some. No reason to believe, again using your foggy
logic, that it still doesn't contain all the names of all the lawyers.

in article vm9ritc96g8ue6@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith at
dbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/15/03 7:40 AM:
You're not getting it, Ernie. I'm saying that I could just as readily make logical conclusions (using your senile logic, of course) on the information available that you are a fake or disbarred. As for M-H it once proclaimed that its pages contained the names of ALL the states' lawyers, not some. No reason to believe, again using your foggy logic, that it still doesn't contain all the names of all the lawyers.

Sorry Larry, but you are not getting it. The M-H may have once claimed that
it contained the names of all state lawyers, but that hasn't been true for
decades, if it ever was true.

On the other hand, if you are in a state with a unified bar, which North
Carolina is, then you can't practice law in the state unless you are a
member of that bar. The North Carolina State Bar does not list you as a
member, therefore you are not licensed to practice law there.

You are not claiming that you are a lawyer there are you, even though you
say it is your state?

In article <3F64CE09.5015E5FB@worldnet.att.net>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Larry wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Merlin wrote:> Dual jurisdiction. Different crime. Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple. The state doesn't get another bite. The state gets one bite, and another state or the federal government may get a bite, as well.Yes, I'm aware of the distinction. I'm talking about the state in generalhere, whether it happens to be the State of California in one instance, andthe United States of America in the other. But they only get a second biteby violating the Bill of Rights. Each sovereign which has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating double jeopardy.No, sorry, this is not true. When you say "can do so without it implicatingdouble jeopardy", you are engaging in equivocation. It isn't a "different"crime, it is the same crime by a different name. The courts are playinglegal hocus pocus in order to achieve a desired result. The Framers of theBill of Rights would be horrified.

I am not at all equivocating. Even defense lawyers don't argue double
jeopardy when a later prosecution is by a different government. It's
about as established of a concept in criminal law as their is.

Ted, do you also think it's double jeopardy when someone is charged with
multiple crimes for one act? After all, if it's DJ for the state and
federal governments to both prosecute you for one criminal act, why isn't
it DJ for a state to charge you with multiple crimes for one criminal act?

In article <eqa9mvojb6klkf56h2p40puejgnqfv4f62@4ax.com>, Robert H. Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:53:06 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:> Dual jurisdiction. Different crime.Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple.The state doesn't get another bite. The state gets one bite, and anotherstate or the federal government may get a bite, as well. Each sovereignwhich has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdictionto prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating doublejeopardy.In other words, no matter what cockamamie interpretation of,"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice putin jeopardy of life or limb,"is current, Larry will be an apologist for it. That is the way for anADA to accumulate brownie points.

I'm not at all an apologist. It makes perfect sense, and I am trying to
explain it to you.

Suppose I kidnap you at gunpoint, and under threat of killing you, I force
you to go with me from New York into New Jersey. New York has a
hypothetical law that makes it illegal to force someone to go with you
against their will. There is a federal law that criminalizes taking
someone across state lines by force. So my conduct has violated *two
separate laws*, passed by two different sovereign entities. I am not
being tried twice for the same offense - I am being tried once for the
offense proscribed by NY law, and again for conduct prohibited by federal
law. Each can enforce their own laws in appropriate criminal procedings,
regardless of whether the other sovereign chooses to enforce their laws.

It's silly to say one government can't enforce a law simply because
another government enforced their own laws first.

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote


"And if Ken Smith isn't a malcontent, then who is???"

Kobe Bryant

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 08:14:31 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
in article vm9ritc96g8ue6@corp.supernews.com, Larry Smith atdbrigman3@charter.net wrote on 9/15/03 7:40 AM: You're not getting it, Ernie. I'm saying that I could just as readily make logical conclusions (using your senile logic, of course) on the information available that you are a fake or disbarred. As for M-H it once proclaimed that its pages contained the names of ALL the states' lawyers, not some. No reason to believe, again using your foggy logic, that it still doesn't contain all the names of all the lawyers.Sorry Larry, but you are not getting it. The M-H may have once claimed thatit contained the names of all state lawyers, but that hasn't been true fordecades, if it ever was true.On the other hand, if you are in a state with a unified bar, which NorthCarolina is, then you can't practice law in the state unless you are amember of that bar. The North Carolina State Bar does not list you as amember, therefore you are not licensed to practice law there.You are not claiming that you are a lawyer there are you, even though yousay it is your state?

South Carolina Bar lists Larry Cornell Smith of Columbia South
Carolina. Could live in North Carolina. Dunno.


- Jon Beaver

Ted Wrote :

"As has been stated before, if you have to ask whether you are mentally fit,
you aren't."

With all due respect, Ted.... that logic is (to borrow a word) "wonky".

So, if a 14 year old girl who eats once a week asks herself "am i fat" is the
answer AUTOMATICALLY "yes" because she simply asked the question ???

>Ernest Schaal citing C.R.P points, then wrote...

"(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."

And this was ratified in 2003. Where was it in 1996 if it wasnt so darned
obvious ?

In article <22-dnSU-XpKIAPmiU-KYvg@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote
Man, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts are all out to get Kenny.
It does.And they're not 'unrelated'.This is a big state (Colorado), but it's population is mostly in the maincity, Denver. The courts are intertwined like you wouldn't believe.Courthouse gossip moves *so* quickly (over a few blocks in each direction)that information is *everywhere* in an instant.Judges often seem to get 'petty'- reaching from one jurisdiction to anotherto follow a defendant or complainant. Even moreso the'prosecutors'/administrators.

Then, knowing this, that speaks even more to Ken's unfitness to practice
law if he was so incapable of self-control that he couldn't even be civil
towards other judges in his pleadings.

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

Larry wrote
Man, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts are
all out to get Kenny.

Huh ? I thought some of the defendants went to the same social club. Hmmm.
Maybe i mis read that somewhere. God knows this thread takes a lot of time to
tune into every so often.

Doesnt the 10th Federal Circuit deal with issues that have already gone thru
Colorado Courts, and like maybe the Feds might recognize a name or two ?? Not
like cases they see dont rotate randomally thru the country.....

Chas wrote

"The courts are intertwined like you wouldn't believe. Courthouse gossip moves
*so* quickly (over a few blocks in each direction) that information is
*everywhere* in an instant. Judges often seem to get 'petty'- reaching from one
jurisdiction to another to follow a defendant or complainant. Even more so the
'prosecutors'/ administrators. Denver is part of a 'Multi-jurisdictional Task
Force' and there is instant communications between various jurisdictions about
agitators and malcontents. The Denver Police Department spy files scandal was
just the tip of the unvetted and raw data transmission between agencies."


Makes ya wonder what fun J Edgar Hoover could have had with the internet,
doesnt it ??

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:23:04 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:
In other words, no matter what cockamamie interpretation of,"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice putin jeopardy of life or limb,"is current, Larry will be an apologist for it. That is the way for anADA to accumulate brownie points.I'm not at all an apologist. It makes perfect sense, and I am trying toexplain it to you.Suppose I kidnap you at gunpoint, and under threat of killing you, I forceyou to go with me from New York into New Jersey. New York has ahypothetical law that makes it illegal to force someone to go with youagainst their will. There is a federal law that criminalizes takingsomeone across state lines by force. So my conduct has violated *twoseparate laws*, passed by two different sovereign entities. I am notbeing tried twice for the same offense - I am being tried once for theoffense proscribed by NY law, and again for conduct prohibited by federallaw. Each can enforce their own laws in appropriate criminal procedings,regardless of whether the other sovereign chooses to enforce their laws.It's silly to say one government can't enforce a law simply becauseanother government enforced their own laws first.

I see no explanation, just an apology. Why didn't you try to answer
the questions I posed previously?

1. Which sections of the 5th amendment apply just to the federal
government, just to the states, or both?

2. Is there a good legal precedent for the distinction between an
"offense" and a "crime"?

3. What restricts the federal government from passing a zillion laws
that will enable them to reprosecute anyone who has been acquitted of
something in a state court?

RHR

In article <vm7kjvgnu7fm80@corp.supernews.com>,
"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message> Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/12/03 9:34 PM:> > Ernest Schaal wrote:
> >> The fact that you can not conceive of someone who has also gone> >> through the rigors of law school and the bar exam being sympathetic to> >> his pain says a lot about you, and what it says is not favorable.
> > It's not enough to "be sympathetic." Larry Smith's challenging you> > to get off your *** and *do* something. Just ask Pastor Niemoller> > about the dangers of letting a tyrant have his way with you....
> The problem is that while I am sympathetic to your pain, anger, and> indignation, I don't believe that the bar examiners were in the wrong in> requesting the mental exam, per the supreme court rules for bar examiners.
What if the rule is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied?I know I'm probably asking too much of you, but try.
What if it isn't? I know I'm probably asking too much of you, but try.
Well, Niepers, maybe we'll never know since the intermediate fed courtsweasel out of reviewing the question by whining Rooker-Feldman

I think that following Supreme Court precedents can hardly be called
"whining."
and theSupreme Court is too busy playing ostrich.

Uh, I don't think it's "playing ostrich" to not hear an appeal that wasn't
filed.
No help from the weasel courtsin CO either, since their procedure is designed to stifle review and promotesecrecy.

No help from the courts in CO because they RULED AGAINST HIM.

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

In article <20030914232706.03410.00001314@mb-m11.aol.com>,
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Larry wroteMan, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts areall out to get Kenny.Huh ? I thought some of the defendants went to the same social club. Hmmm.Maybe i mis read that somewhere. God knows this thread takes a lot of time totune into every so often.

No, you read it right. You also might have read that it's a large club,
there is no evidence of them socializing *together,* and that membership
in the same social club is not enough for an automatic recusal. Nor is
there any indication these people know, much less like, each other. For
all we know, one of the defendants stole the tee time of the judge, so the
judge is out to stick it to him.
Doesnt the 10th Federal Circuit deal with issues that have already gone thruColorado Courts, and like maybe the Feds might recognize a name or two ?? Notlike cases they see dont rotate randomally thru the country.....

Right. So what?

I read the other day that the New York County District Attorney's Office
(Manhattan) is a party in nearly 1/3 of the cases heard by the Court of
Appeals in NY (the highest court of the state) each year. Don't you think
the elected DA and the Chief Justice occassionally are at functions
together? Don't you think they on occassion discuss court administrative
issues? Don't you think they're both professional enough to do their jobs
regardless of their being acquiantances?

On a more general level, certain lawyers, on both sides of a case, appear
before certain judges on a weekly, if not daily, basis. I'd think a judge
would sooner be predisposed for or against a party (if at all) based on
their experiences with that person in court, not the fact that they bump
into each other on the weekends, no?

In <none-1409031252130001@192.168.2.4>, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:Merlin wrote: Robert H. Risch wrote:> SolarChase wrote:>> Ted wrote
>>> Yes. He had already been acquitted in stste court. Despite all the>>> politically inspired equivocation, the federal charges represented>>> double jeopardy.
>> Fair enough, i wasnt starting a new thread, just curious of reactions>> since it got brought up.
> I'll start the new thread. The fact that SCOTUS didn't regard> prosecuting someone for a civil rights violation as unconstitutional, when> that person was acquitted when the same offense was called assault, was> encouraging to me, in a way. Maybe if some state or the federal> government would start trying criminal and civil cases via a panel of lay> and professional judges, and call it a jury trial, the Supreme Court would> go along.
Dual jurisdiction. Different crime.
Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple.
The state doesn't get another bite. The state gets one bite, and anotherstate or the federal government may get a bite, as well.

I think he meant "the government" when he said "the state," not "The State
of California."
Each sovereignwhich has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdictionto prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating doublejeopardy.

That of course correctly states established law; the question is whether
this is a reasonable interpretation of the 5th Am, which doesn't, after
all, say "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy by any one sovereign."

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

In article <nieporen-608959.00061115092003@news.fu-berlin.de>, David Marc
Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
In <none-1409031252130001@192.168.2.4>, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote: Each sovereignwhich has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdictionto prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating doublejeopardy.That of course correctly states established law; the question is whetherthis is a reasonable interpretation of the 5th Am, which doesn't, afterall, say "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twiceput in jeopardy by any one sovereign."

True. But federal statutes and state statutes aren't identically worded -
so they are different offenses that cover the same conduct, just as a
state may have two or more staututes that govern a specific act.

It would be an intersting debate if there was a federal law that was
word-for-word identical to a state law. Whether that would implicate DJ
would be an interesting issue - although I'd question ewhether the federal
government had jurisdiction to pass such a law, as there is no federal
police power.

In article <pucamvgqid9pv3hs7tqfv0mjem60lqqet8@4ax.com>, Robert H. Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:I see no explanation, just an apology. Why didn't you try to answerthe questions I posed previously?

I have not offered an apology. I simply explained what the law is. I
have, though, previously answered the questions and for your sake, will
attempt to do so again. Though Risch, you're one of those people who, no
matter what my answers are, will find them unsatisfactory.
1. Which sections of the 5th amendment apply just to the federalgovernment, just to the states, or both?

In Barron v. Baltimore, an 1833 case, the Supreme Court held that the Bill
of Rights is only applicable to the federal government and not the
states. So, to answer your wquestion, all of the fifth amendment applies
just to the federal government. Duncan v. Louisiana, a 1968 case,
explains the idea of "selective, jot for jot incorporation" whihc states
that if a concept expressed in the Bill of Rights is "necessary to an
Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty," then it is applicable to the
states as well, and that concept is incorporated against the states in its
entirety.

Every aspect of the BoR has been incorporated against the states except
the right to be free from excessive bail and the right to be prosecuted by
grand jury indictment (which SCOTUS has yet to rule on, but its assumed
they would hold these provisions applicable to the states when/iof the
issue should arise).
2. Is there a good legal precedent for the distinction between an"offense" and a "crime"?

I don't understand the relevance of this question. You're taking two
words, with their own definitions, and asking what the difference is. Is
there precedent for distinguishing an "apple" from an "orange"?

A crime is whatever conduct (with the approprorpiate mental state) is
prohibited by a penal statute. So if a state passes a law prohibiting X,
then doing X is a crime. If the federal goverment passes a law
prohibiting Y, then Y is a crime.
3. What restricts the federal government from passing a zillion lawsthat will enable them to reprosecute anyone who has been acquitted ofsomething in a state court?

The constitution.

The constitution limits the powers of the federal government. The federal
government has no power unless it is specifically granted by the
constitution, and there is no federal police power. See, Art. I, Sec. 8,
and the 10th amendment.

But if something is within the jurisdiction of the federal government to
legislate, they can do it. It makes no difference whether or not a state
has already legislated in that area of criminal law - otherwise, it would
be directly opposite of the supremacy clause. Not to mention bizarre (the
federal government could legislate only in areas that none of the 50
states have addressed?)

Besides, "reprosecuting" someone is not even a clear cut phrase. What's
legal in one state may be illegal in another. The government can't pass a
law ex post facto just to "reprosecute" someone who was acquitted. Heck,
the federal government need not be the one doing the "reprosecution"
anyway. Someone could be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws
FIRST, and then "reprosecuted" by the state for the state statutory crimes
they allegedly committed. Or someone could be prosecuted ONLY for
violating federal law, even if there is no state law addressing the
conduct involved.

Finally, the federal government doesn't pass laws that merely duplicate or
mimic state penal laws. they can't, as they don't have the jurisdiction
or constitutional authority to criminalize most crime, which is a purely
local issue. (One neighbor murdering another, by iself, has no federal law
implications). The wording of the statutes are different, so it's a
different crime (or offense, whichever word you fancy). Think of it this
way: before you undertake certain conduct, you can determine that it is a
violation of state laws X, Y, and Z. If you're caught, you will be
prosecuted under all three statutes. Well, you may also determine that
your conduct would violate not only state law X, Y, and Z, but also
federal laws A, B, and C. So if you're caught, you get prosecuted for
violating all six laws.

Risch, I'm not an apologist for this rule just because you don't
understand it and I'm trying to explain it to you. There are
controversial issues that I take sides on and will defend my position -
but this is a well-settled issue. I bet you can't even find a defense
attorney in this newsgroup who would argue such a prosecution would be a
double jeopardy violation.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F64D5B4.7986B681@worldnet.att.net>...
Actually I just looked at South Carolina, and there IS a Larry Smith there. Went to Law School in North Carolina, practises in South. Could this be our Larry?

I don't think so, because that Larry Smith is not listed in
Martindale-Hubbell and the person posting here under that name thinks
that all lawyers are in Martindale-Hubbell. If he were the Larry Smith
in South Carolina he would have to know better because he would know
that he is not listed there.

I hope you are not insinuating that Mr. Smith is that big of a (name
deleted so as to not offend) that he would argue that everyone is
listed in Martindale-Hubbell when he knows that is a lie.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 03:45:24 GMT, Robert H. Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:23:04 GMT, none@nowhere.com (Larry) wrote:In other words, no matter what cockamamie interpretation of,"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice putin jeopardy of life or limb,"is current, Larry will be an apologist for it. That is the way for anADA to accumulate brownie points.I'm not at all an apologist. It makes perfect sense, and I am trying toexplain it to you.Suppose I kidnap you at gunpoint, and under threat of killing you, I forceyou to go with me from New York into New Jersey. New York has ahypothetical law that makes it illegal to force someone to go with youagainst their will. There is a federal law that criminalizes takingsomeone across state lines by force. So my conduct has violated *twoseparate laws*, passed by two different sovereign entities. I am notbeing tried twice for the same offense - I am being tried once for theoffense proscribed by NY law, and again for conduct prohibited by federallaw. Each can enforce their own laws in appropriate criminal procedings,regardless of whether the other sovereign chooses to enforce their laws.It's silly to say one government can't enforce a law simply becauseanother government enforced their own laws first.I see no explanation, just an apology. Why didn't you try to answerthe questions I posed previously?\

Your questions are not "questions," Robert. To be sure, you are more
sophisticated than to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife?" But
sometimes you ask a question not for the answer but for the implied
adoption of the sometimes obscure premise of the question. I have no
problem with exposing the weakness of someone's argument by
maneuvering them into saying what they really mean but didn't want to
say. I do have a problem with tricking someone into saying what they
don't mean.
1. Which sections of the 5th amendment apply just to the federalgovernment, just to the states, or both?

This has nothing to do with the double jeopardy clause.
2. Is there a good legal precedent for the distinction between an"offense" and a "crime"?

There is an answer, but it has nothing to do with the DJ clause.
3. What restricts the federal government from passing a zillion lawsthat will enable them to reprosecute anyone who has been acquitted ofsomething in a state court?

Nothing as long as it's within the enumerated powers of Congress,
e.g., interstate commerce.

- Jon Beaver

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote......Don't you think the elected DA and the Chief Justice occassionally are at functions together? Don't you think they on occassion discuss court administrative issues? Don't you think they're both professional enough to do their jobs regardless of their being acquiantances?

Yes; Yes; No.
99% of the cases are run-of-the-mill. When it's time to close ranks and do
something in concert, everybody knows their part and plays it.
On a more general level, certain lawyers, on both sides of a case, appear before certain judges on a weekly, if not daily, basis. I'd think a judge would sooner be predisposed for or against a party (if at all) based on their experiences with that person in court, not the fact that they bump into each other on the weekends, no?

No.
That's why they call it 'political influence', or being 'connected'.
Seems pretty common by all accounts.

Chas

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:08:38 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote......Don't you think the elected DA and the Chief Justice occassionally are at functions together? Don't you think they on occassion discuss court administrative issues? Don't you think they're both professional enough to do their jobs regardless of their being acquiantances?Yes; Yes; No.99% of the cases are run-of-the-mill. When it's time to close ranks and dosomething in concert, everybody knows their part and plays it. On a more general level, certain lawyers, on both sides of a case, appear before certain judges on a weekly, if not daily, basis. I'd think a judge would sooner be predisposed for or against a party (if at all) based on their experiences with that person in court, not the fact that they bump into each other on the weekends, no?No.That's why they call it 'political influence', or being 'connected'.Seems pretty common by all accounts.

That's interesting. You think a lawyer's good professional
relationship with a judge is improper? Been sipping Sterno again,
huh?

- Jon Beaver

none@nowhere.com (Larry) writes:
(One neighbor murdering another, by iself, has no federal lawimplications).

Doesn't murder affect interstate commerce?
--
Rahul

in article 20030914231811.03375.00001164@mb-m11.aol.com, SolarChase at
solarchase@aol.com wrote on 9/15/03 12:18 PM:
Ernest Schaal citing C.R.P points, then wrote... "(3) Applicants must certify that they are in compliance with any child support order as defined by $B!x(J26-13-123(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." And this was ratified in 2003. Where was it in 1996 if it wasnt so darned obvious ?
It was modified in 2003, but I don't know what those modifications were. Do
you?

In article <bk3sdj$p56$1@blue.rahul.net>,
c.c.eiftj@SupremeXCo.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
none@nowhere.com (Larry) writes:(One neighbor murdering another, by iself, has no federal lawimplications).Doesn't murder affect interstate commerce?

No. Murder, like most crime, absent special circumstances, is a local matter.

Larry wrote:
In article <20030913162343.14517.00001281@mb-m12.aol.com>, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:

[snip]
Please explain what unique, distinct or even superior "mental fitness" *you*have that seperates you from not only the rest of US, but the accomplishedsurgeon. The CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The pesky life insurance agent. TheMartial Artist. Or a CPA. What is it that puts a *lawyer* at the height of thesanity food chain ??? No one is claiming it's the "height" of mental fitness or a "superior" state of fitness. It's a qualitative measurement, not a quantitative one. But it means you have the mental competence to understand the rule and role of law,

Let's use a practical example: the principle of stare decisis. Why is it
important? In two phrases, due process and equal protection. I need
to know what the law is to be able to conform my behavior to it -- for
if I can't rely on clearly written statutes and settled precedent, any kind
of meaningful economic planning and political behavior becomes, as a
practical matter, impossible. If I don't know what political speech might
get me into trouble with the Bar, I won't say anything -- not unlike Iraqis
under Saddam's rule. I argue passionately that this cannot be -- but you
seem to have no problem with such a state of affairs, Lar.
the role of an attorney,

To piss the judge off to the point where he threatens to hit you (or
so it would appear, by your own public admission ;))?
the process of the system, and how each of the actors function within the system.

I don't know about you, but I was taught that the job of an appellate
court was to review the trial court's application of the facts of a case
to the law. Now, it would seem to me that, seeing as to how Rooker-
Feldman doctrine specifically allows facial challenges to a statute, and
Roe v. Ogden specifically permits me to raise facial challenges to bar
admission statutes, the Circuit's decision in Smith v. Mullarkey is not
only wrong but egregiously so.

In theory, these sort of things shouldn't happen, and our appellate
courts exist to ensure that mistakes are corrected. But in the *real*
world, we know that judges are as human -- and therefore, every
bit as corrupt -- as doctors, cops, and Catholic priests. Just as the
cop on the beat has a tendency to shelter his comrades, judges tend
to do the same. As such, the only rational explanation for the 10th
Circuit's irrational decision in Smith v. Mullarkey is this natural (and
quite predictable) corruption.

The most effective way to ensure that government servants serve
the people, as opposed to themselves, is the threat of litigation as a
remedy as against tortious conduct. If you know that you can be
sued for tortious conduct, you're more likely to refrain from engag-
ing in it.
Also an understanding of the ethical and behavioral rules, their rationales,

Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) comes immediately to mind here (Colorado
loves model rules, and as a general rule, you can assume that their
rules are very close to the model rules across the board). It says,
"A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material
fact or law to a tribunal." The rationale is obvious: especially in a
complex case, the court needs to know what the law is, and can't
be expected to do independent research; the system imposes this
duty of candor upon attorneys to ensure the fair administration of
justice.
As I have shown in another thread, the Colorado Bar -- by and
through attorney James Coyle, knowingly and deliberately made a
false statement of law to what it asserts to be a tribunal. And yet,
none of you pious defenders of the Bar seem outraged by what is
an indisputable act of misconduct.

I understand the rules, Lar-- do you?
and a demonstrated willingness and ability to abide by them.

The *law* dictates what you can and cannot do, and I would
think that a 25-year record of law-abiding conduct is sufficient
and competent evidence to prove your willingness and ability to
follow the law beyond any reasonable doubt.
It's a quirky hypo, but it's the best I can do on short notice:
Let's say that you and I have a telephone conversation. I can
secretly tape it, while you cannot. Why? Because it's legal in
Colorado, and I am not a lawyer, while the activity is a viola-
tion of professional ethics (it keeps lawyers from taking unfair
advantage of clients) and probably illegal in NY, to boot. (It's
a stupid law, as the saga of Linda Tripp showed, but it is the
law in some states.)

Let's say I go down to Spys-R'-Us and buy a recorder -- I
have friends who do this, in Jerky Boys style, to record their
prank calls for profit :) -- and tape the call. Have I violated
any rules of professional ethics? Not in Colorado. By their
terms, they *ONLY* apply to LAWYERS. (In other states,
YMMV; CA comes immediately to mind.)
Now, let's say that I turn that tape over to federal regulators
(kind of like what Tripp did). Should the Bar have grounds to
object to my admission? All I have done is exercised my right
to record that conversation -- something I wouldn't have if I
were a lawyer, but a right nonetheless. And on that basis, I'd
submit that they should not have grounds to object.

And let us assume that I was admitted to the Bar tomorrow.
Would I give that tape recorder to the Salvation Army? In a
New York minute.

Now, tell me again how I don't have the requisite mental fit-
ness to be an attorney, given your own advertised standards.
And while you're at it, please explain why we should be per-
suaded that you have it, whilst I do not.

ptsc wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:23:44 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: Let me put this another way: How do you think *you* would fare ifGreta Van Susteren and a few of her friends were sitting in judgmentof YOUR C&F review? It is more likely that it would be Greta van Susteren sitting in front of a bar disciplinary committee herself, seeing as it has already happened to both her and her husband.

Just answer the question, ptsc: "Why won't you let go?"

After all, it is *obvious* that you're an obsessed crackpot....

If that argument makes traction with you when it is applied to me,
why shouldn't it be equally applicable to you? You are clearly unfit
to practice law, and assuming that you do, you have a clear moral
obligation to turn in your bar card.

See how flexible the concept is? You and I may agree about the
need for exposing the misconduct of Miscavige and his thugs, but a
bar examiner might not. You draw me and Deana Holmes on your
inquiry panel, and you're golden -- but if you get Jon or Greta, you
could expect to be "audited" by the State (uh, never mind how the
$cienos feel about psychiatry).

This is what I'm complaining about: In turning unfettered discretion
over to bar examiners, it creates a clear, present, and unnecessary
danger to our civil liberties.

ptsc wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:23:44 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: Let me put this another way: How do you think *you* would fare ifGreta Van Susteren and a few of her friends were sitting in judgmentof YOUR C&F review? It is more likely that it would be Greta van Susteren sitting in front of a bar disciplinary committee herself, seeing as it has already happened to both her and her husband. --- http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs%5Cfall96%5C22700.htm The firm headed by Susteren, her husband John Coale (who recently handled Lisa Marie Presley's divorce from Michael Jackson) and their former law partner Phillip Allen illegally contacted families of West Virginians injured in accidents between 1990 and 1993, the state's Lawyer Disciplinary Board contends. In one incident, the Charleston Daily Mail reported, a firm employee, over the protests of the accident victim's wife, tried to enter a hospital intensive care unit to talk to a man who suffered burns over 60 percent of his body. "We don't do these things in West Virginia," state bar lawyer Sherri Goodman told the paper." --- They were disciplined by the bar but later snuck out of it on a technicality.

Ditto that heroic example of Marine morality, Lt. Col. Ol'Lie North. :)

"Technicalities" like due process of law don't seem to bother you --
unless it happens to be your ox being gored.
I would gladly concede that you would be much less of a menace with a law license than these two sleazepigs.

I see. A regular attorney suborns perjury, and forces me to recuse a
sitting judge on account of evidence regarding his tampering, and I am
the menace? And Greta does what is basically standard procedure in
the profession, and beats discipline for it, and you call her a sleazepig?

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: But are you REALLY a free man? Not in Uday Mullarkey's bailiwick, I'm not. Welcome to the Soviet ChristiaNazi Republic of Colorado -- a.k.a. the Home of Jim Dobson and not incidentally, the "Hate State." I grew up in Colorado. And that's NOT how I would characterise it.

I live in Colorado. And that is how it is now -- after the DobsoNazi
invasion. It was a more tolerant and libertarian place before those nuts
escaped California.

But then again, you are a bigot and religious nutter who thrives on
hate. You'd like it here.

Why don't you move to Nevada? There's no income tax, you live
out of a suitcase in any event, and you should always be able to find
a brothel or drunk and horny businesswoman (she'd *have* to be to
jump your bones) whenever you need one.


Subject: Re: Another Blast from Teddi-Beer, AFBL's Resident Racist (was Re: Chretien: 'No need for war'....
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:46 -0600
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.politics.british,aus.politics,alt .fan.bob-larson,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: Absolutely. Chretien has 2 strikes against him. #1: He's a frog. And #2: he's Canadian. And Canadians aren't exactly noted for their leadership on the battlefield. Gadzooks! Now, he's crackin' back on CANADIANS!!!

Ted's just bummed because he can't think of a proper derugatory term for
'em. . .

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

That's easy. This is yet another example of feminine ``logic'' (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one).
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not
allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com

Larry Smith wrote:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote in message news:BB88BC35.706E%eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp...

[Ernest's drivel snipped]
Now you're talking in hyperbole, Ernest, and that makes me have probable cause you are afflicted with some mental disease.

That's all it takes here in Colorado, and Ernest doesn't seem to have
a problem with that. If Vern can't do it, perhaps Bert can explain it to
him.... :)

Larry wrote:
In article <3F631DF5.594DB495@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:ptsc wrote: On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:24:50 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > Think about it. If you have to prove your mental fitness, then you are by >definition presumed not to be mentally fit. As you are, therefore, regarded >as having a disability, the ADA necessarily applies. This has to win some kind of specious reasoning award. How so? You did take an elemental logic class in college, did you not? Under the common law, every man is presumed competent -- and if thisgeneral presupposition applied, the burden would fall upon the governmentto prove otherwise. But as we have to prove our mental bona fides if andwhen called upon, we are *all* presumed incompetent. There is no thirdoption. "every man is presumed competent" is the general rule. And it applies to general competence to perform as an adult in society. Every man is NOT presumed competent for every college he applies for admission into, for every job he applies for, or for every license he applies for. You are not presumed competent and mentally fit to possess such a license absence your demonstration of fitness.

If that is the case, then everyone should have to undergo a mental fitness
exam as a matter of law -- not just to pass the bar, but on an ongoing basis.
You simply can't have it both ways. Either law is a specialized field, requiring years of training at law school nad passing the bar exam, in which case it's equally reasonable to say a speciailized type of menal fitness is required to practice in the field,

Fine. Define what it *IS* to constitutional tolerance, and then we'll talk.
But unless and until THEY can do that -- remaining mindful of the strictures
placed upon them by the ADA -- it is a standardless standard and as such,
patently offensive to the Constitution.
or being a lawyer is nothing, something anyone can do, that there are no unique qualifications whatsoever for.

False dilemma. A state can require high standards, but not standards
which violate the DP or EP clauses of the Constitution. And while I do
not claim that it is not theoretically possible for a mental fitness standard
to be imposed, I submit that a standardless standard violates DP/EP.
Besides, not mentally fit of being a lawyer does NOT mean you are mentally disabled or otherwise entitled to anything under the ADA.

Nonsense. Every court which has considered the matter has found that
the ADA applies to bar admission. Didn't they teach you that at Martha
Stewart U.?

ptsc wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:21:30 -0400, "Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> wrote:You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they are infact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Courtpublishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitions filedbefore Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99% ofthe petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the "Petitionis denied" on the clerk's stationery. "Confesses" mischaracterizes it. It is a simple statement of fact.

Depends on how you look at it. The odds of an average citizen getting
heard is closer to one in a thousand, which means that any *competent*
attorney knows that appeal to SCOTUS should be the absolute last play
in any legal playbook. And in a sense, it is a confession.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Fluffygirl wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: ptsc wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:>> Let me put this another way: How do you think *you* would fare if Greta>> Van Susteren and a few of her friends were sitting in judgment of YOUR>> C&F review?> It is more likely that it would be Greta van Susteren sitting in front of> a bar disciplinary committee herself, seeing as it has already happened> to both her and her husband.> <http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs%5Cfall96%5C22700.htm>> The firm headed by Susteren, her husband John Coale (who recently> handled Lisa Marie Presley's divorce from Michael Jackson) and their> former law partner Phillip Allen illegally contacted families of> West Virginians injured in accidents between 1990 and 1993, the> state's Lawyer Disciplinary Board contends. In one incident, the> Charleston Daily Mail reported, a firm employee, over the protests> of the accident victim's wife, tried to enter a hospital intensive> care unit to talk to a man who suffered burns over 60 percent of his> body. "We don't do these things in West Virginia," state bar lawyer> Sherri Goodman told the paper." [Yeah, right. Tell me about it. They only do such things in Arkansas.] So Greta van Susteren is an ambulance-chaser from West Virginia? Oh well, what do you expect? I hear she's a $cientologist. So? So she's duped by a money-making operation -- a scam. I'm a Scientologist too. I feel sorry for you. Did you know that L. Ron Hubbard, then a second-rate science-fiction writer originally invented scientology as a mock-religion to show how easy it was to invent one, and to attempt to thereby demonstrate that all religions are man-made creations?

If that was ElRon's intention, he proved it in spades, and performed
the world a valuable public service.
But, once he got into it, he discovered that it was a pretty good racket -- MUCH more money in it than in writing bad science-fiction, so he ran with it.

Religion in general is a great racket -- Christianinsanity is particularly
lucrative (see, e.g., http://members.freespeech.org/boblarson). All you
have to do is visit Vatican City or the TBN compound (and catch Jan
Crouch with her boy-toys and Paul in his 7-series Bimmer) to see that....

I've read and even tried Dianetics at home, and slogged through one
of Hubbard's incomprehensibly bad S-F novels. I've also read a fair
bit of the leaked official $cieno documents on the Net and his son's
book, and have come to the conclusion that while the basic principles
may not be totally unsound, $cientology in its present state is flat-out
weird. [That's my take on all of the world's major religions, save for
the less extreme forms of Judaism and Buddhism.]
But on the weirdness scale, it *pales* in comparison to Christianity.
While the concept of "body thetans" seems goofy, demons of heart-
burn are so absurd as to make $cientology appear almost reasonable
by comparison. And it's hard to compare even Xenu to Teddi's Jesus
-- a psychotic stalker of a god (see attached).
And I also work in the legal field (albeit not as an attorney, What then? A legal secretary?

She may be capable of grasping the concepts -- far better than you,
a glorified telephone repairman. I can't wait to see you two argue the
merits of your particular superstitions -- I'll be happy to sit back and
toss a steak on the barbie, grab a cold brew (pity I can't have a VB),
and enjoy the fireworks. :)

Subject: Stalking Jesus! Available at Crackpots 'R' Us Outlets Everywhere (was
Re: Jesus is a stalker!
Date: 25 May 2002 11:46:04 GMT
From: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism

Jim2002 wrote:
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> said:"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote: Jim2002 wrote: ... > I've been toying with the idea of posting a message comparing certain > aspects of the Christian idea of deity to the profile of a stalker. Such an idea is the product of a demented mind, which has no concept neither of the character of God, nor of the nature of sin, with which he himself is besmirched. Your god has no character, and we reject the ridiculous notion of sin.You do, too -- you aren't exactly known for living a virtuous life. Well,in all candor, now that you are changing your story.... To Kaldis: Maybe you should look on the following as a checklist for comparison to your God. THere might be other items that could be added. It knows where you live. It is watching you. You can't see it or where it is watching from. It is everywhere you are. It has your personal information. You are a sinner in its eyes, deserving of punishment. It is the judge and jury, and is above heeding human laws. You might be able to get into its graces, but if you don't, and even worse if you violate its rules, it is entitled to punish you. Among the worst violations is not loving it. At any moment, it could confront you and give you the justice that sinners deserve, to be a lesson if you live, and as just punishment, if you don't live. And for all that, it says it loves you. Is your God like that, Mr. Kaldis?

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh. That is *good*, Jim.

Ted will never admit it, but that is precisely how he describes his
"Stalking Jesus," especially in remarks directed at me. And when
you think about it, the ONLY time his "Stalking Jesus" gets really
upset is when you don't love Him (the threat: "Judgement Day").
After all, Ted was never punished for committing adultery with a
married businesswoman -- scruples always come separately. But
if you ever dare speak ill of Stalking Jesus, at any moment he can
"confront you and give you the justice that sinners deserve, to be
a lesson if you live, and as just punishment, if you don't live."

Stalking Jesus is your judge and jury, unheeded by human laws.
Specifically, if anyone "knows the good he ought to do and does
it not," he has sinned. Jas. 4:17. But Stalking Jesus ignores such
human laws, leaving his victims to suffer grievous injustice without
any hope of recompense.

And the Christian actually thinks he *deserves* this abuse.

This is exactly the type of relationship battered wives have with
their husbands, and brainwashed hostages, their captors. Stalking
Jesus tells them they *deserve* to be beaten, and they believe it!
Clinically speaking, it's called the Stockholm Syndrome.

(http://homepages.together.net/~whbw/WHBWstockholm.html)

Most Christians have rejected this view of their god, which is in
itself a free-form adaptation of Christianity. But the conservative
wackos like Ted cling to it like Linus' blanket.

Larry Smith wrote:
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message news:bk0alc$nth$1@blue.rahul.net... mag@camelot.org (Merlin) writes: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, just before they affirmed the dismissal of his frivolous suit, said that Ken had a right of appeal to the US Supreme Court, but didn't even try. I understand that, according to the rules of the US Supreme Court, "review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." You are exactly right and these pretender lawyers know that, if they are in fact lawschool grads. The Clerk of the United States Supreme Court publishes a booklet which confesses that less than 1% of the petitions filed before Scotus are granted even a hearing. That means that more than 99% of the petitioners receive a letter with a short sentence saying the "Petition is denied" on the clerk's stationery. Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) will tell you the chances of receiving a hearing in the Rehnquist Court are so remote as to be negligible. No bar admissions case has gotten past the scrapbaskets in the high court since _Willner vs. Committee on Character and Fitness,_ a Warren Court era case requiring due process of law in bar admissions controversies. _Willner_ is good law only on paper because it is not enforced in any court in the land, except perhaps to prevent the peremptory firing of schoolteachers.

Exactly. Any good lawyer can see that SCOTUS is a dead end, unless
your name is Nike or George W. Bush.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Merlin wrote: Robert H. Risch wrote: SolarChase wrote:> Ted wrote>> Yes. He had already been acquitted in stste court. Despite all the>> politically inspired equivocation, the federal charges represented>> double jeopardy.> Fair enough, i wasnt starting a new thread, just curious of reactions> since it got brought up. I'll start the new thread. The fact that SCOTUS didn't regard prosecuting someone for a civil rights violation as unconstitutional, when that person was acquitted when the same offense was called assault, was encouraging to me, in a way. Maybe if some state or the federal government would start trying criminal and civil cases via a panel of lay and professional judges, and call it a jury trial, the Supreme Court would go along. Dual jurisdiction. Different crime. Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple.

Wrong. Same act, different crime.
Koon's lawyer might have argued it (DJ), as he should, but it doesn't look like even a close call. Only because of the sorry state of the American legal system these days.

Why? Because they wouldn't let Sludge Roy Moron shove his view
on religion down the public's throat?
As Ken suggests, the Bill of Rights has become a piece of toilet paper.

If you can't enforce your right to due process -- what Judge Bork
describes as the right to fair consideration of your claim -- then you
have no rights at all.

David Marc Nieporent wrote:
In article <22-dnSU-XpKIAPmiU-KYvg@comcast.com>, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Man, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts are all out to get Kenny.It does.And they're not 'unrelated'.This is a big state (Colorado), but it's population is mostly in the maincity, Denver. The courts are intertwined like you wouldn't believe.Courthouse gossip moves *so* quickly (over a few blocks in each direction)that information is *everywhere* in an instant.Judges often seem to get 'petty'- reaching from one jurisdiction to anotherto follow a defendant or complainant. Even moreso the'prosecutors'/administrators. Then, knowing this, that speaks even more to Ken's unfitness to practice law if he was so incapable of self-control that he couldn't even be civil towards other judges in his pleadings.

Uh, where have I ever not been "civil towards other judges" in my
pleadings? Alleging the apparently true facts above would hardly be
uncivil....

ptsc wrote:
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,

Depends on the examination.
such as an orthopedic consultative evaluation for a disability claimant?

Can't perform one of those without cause, either.
Do you think that people who seek psychiatric treatment are some inferior class of people, such that even a routine psychiatric examination is "humiliating?"

No, I think that we all have a right to privacy -- the right most valued
by civilized men -- which may not be disturbed by government except
in the most pressing of needs. That our Founding Fathers included an
explicit prohibition against unreasonable searches in the Bill of Rights is
conclusive evidence that they considered some searches unreasonable.
To conduct an IME on the grounds of "cause we wants it" is, I would
submit, per se unreasonable.

ptsc wrote:
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"

[snip]
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.

Do you agree with Judge Bork that there is no such thing as a right to
privacy?
Medical examination of any kind is one of the six standard vehicles for discovery in any legal proceeding.

But no medical examination can be performed except upon a showing
of (1) good cause and (2) that the matter is properly in controversy, and
those conditions precedent cannot be met *as a matter of law* by mere
conclusory allegations. Schlagenhauf.

If SCOTUS precedent means nothing, then we have no rule of law.

Ernest Schaal wrote:
The issue was raised of whether or not the First Amendment prevented stated beliefs from being used as evidence. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent.

If we were talking about criminal conduct, it might even be relevant.

With respect to the First Amendment, R.A.V. revealed the secrets of
freemasonry, or so to speak -- that the protection we grant speech is a
function of its social value. While obscene speech has little social value
and thereby given no protection, speech on the public issues of the day
is given the highest protection possible under law.

The danger is in the possibility of indirect attacks on public speech by
the government. To be fully participating members of our representative
democracy, we must be able to think the unthinkable and even speak the
unspeakable. Perhaps you would prefer that we emulate Communist
China?

Chas wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Man, it just sucks that every judge in these numerous, unrelated courts are all out to get Kenny. It does. And they're not 'unrelated'. This is a big state (Colorado), but it's population is mostly in the main city, Denver. The courts are intertwined like you wouldn't believe. Courthouse gossip moves *so* quickly (over a few blocks in each direction) that information is *everywhere* in an instant.

And the point of exchange is the Denver Athletic Club.
Judges often seem to get 'petty'- reaching from one jurisdiction to another to follow a defendant or complainant. Even moreso the 'prosecutors'/administrators. Denver is part of a 'Multi-jurisdictional Task Force' and there is instant communications between various jurisdictions about agitators and malcontents. The Denver Police Department spy files scandal was just the tip of the unvetted and raw data transmission between agencies.

Word gets around the courthouse -- I actually have evidence to that
effect. The "Chinese wall" is a myth.

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article 3F646EFA.394DD118@worldnet.att.net, Theodore A. Kaldis at kaldis@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/14/03 10:36 PM: Larry Smith wrote: Most attorneys (well, the competent ones anyway) [...] Which would exclude Larry Smith, one is inclined to surmise. But he isn't an attorney, is he? I mean, Larry Smith claims to live in North Carolina, to practice in North Carolina one must be a member of the North Carolina bar, and there is no Larry Smith or Lawrence Smith in the North Carolina bar membership directory.

But then again, an Ernest Lawrence Smith could go by "Larry," if he
so chose -- even if he just hated the name, "Ernest." :)

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article 20030914231811.03375.00001164@mb-m11.aol.com, SolarChase at solarchase@aol.com wrote on 9/15/03 12:18 PM: Ernest Schaal citing C.R.P points, then wrote... "(3) Applicants must certify that they are in compliance with any child support order as defined by $B!x(J26-13-123(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." And this was ratified in 2003. Where was it in 1996 if it wasnt so darned obvious ? It was modified in 2003, but I don't know what those modifications were. Do you?

As I said before, the requirement concerning the IME was in place
in 1996 -- but that doesn't necessarily make it constitutional.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Larry wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Merlin wrote:> Dual jurisdiction. Different crime. Equivocation: same act. The state in effect got another bite at the apple. The state doesn't get another bite. The state gets one bite, and another state or the federal government may get a bite, as well. Yes, I'm aware of the distinction. I'm talking about the state in general here, whether it happens to be the State of California in one instance, and the United States of America in the other. But they only get a second bite by violating the Bill of Rights.

How so? The Double Jeopardy clause only speaks to the same offence,
as opposed to the same act. It's part and parcel of that broad reading of
the Tenth Amendment which you are so enamored with -- that the federal
and state governments are independent "sovereigns," with the feds as their
suzerain.
Each sovereign which has a law pertaining to the conduct which occurred, and jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant, can do so without it implicating double jeopardy. No, sorry, this is not true. When you say "can do so without it implicating double jeopardy", you are engaging in equivocation. It isn't a "different" crime, it is the same crime by a different name.

The same act can violate any number of statutory prohibitions. For
instance, a stockbroker could commit common-law fraud and violate<