Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
David Marc Nieporent wrote: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Well, if there is no standard, then a person can be denied a license forany reason or no reason at all. Even if there were "no standard," which is not the case, the question is not what "can" happen, but what _did_ happen. Were _you_ denied a license for "no reason at all"? If not, the fact that someone else "can" be doesn't help you. You don't get a license merely because someone else, purely hypothetically, might be arbitrarily denied a license. You weren't arbitrarily denied one. [Ken rolls eyes] So where DO you malpractice law? If there are no standards at all,any decision is by definition arbitrary and capricious, and any denial ofa valuable government benefit is facially unconstitutional, provided OCthat a life, liberty, or property interest is implicated. (There's plenty of10CA case law on this, btw.)

Where DID you learn to roll your eyes like that? Third grade?
I'll bet a person as talented as you you could manage to
pull a groin muscle doing that.

Sayyy... Did you do that in front of the Co bar and Federal
District Court Judge? I only wish I had been there to see it..
Ah well, back to topic. Above David said "You don't get a
license merely because someone else, purely hypothetically,
might be arbitrarily denied a license."

So my question is: Did you ever consider the possibility
that if you stopped "rolling" for a moment and started
"reading" for a change, you might not end up in the
unfortunate situations you keep finding yourself?

-Merlin

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:14:02 GMT, Daniel Myers <dhm@best.com> wrote:On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Jon Beaver wrote: That was a nice diversion -- arguing about whether Ken posted the "motion." If we can't see the whole record, I want at least to see the Bar's brief to the Colorado Supreme Court. Without their side of the story, we don't even know for sure that their denial of his application had anything at all to do with his refusal to take the "mental status examination." - Jon BeaverAgreed. I didn't know there was one other than the "motion" which I sawfor the first time this morning in Kaldis' posting. If he wants to web itinstead of posting it here he can get a free website at www.geocities.com. You simply can't get to first base with any legal analysis of this case without the WHOLE record of the proceedings. However, posting the whole record is not practical. I suggested, however, that Ken post at least the document which stated the Bar Examiners summary of their WHOLE case -- their brief to the Colorado Supreme Court. The motion that was posted only deals with the reasons why a mental status examination was requested -- a peripheral issue. It does not deal at all with the ultimate reasons why Ken Smith was denied a license. All we can do is speculate and occasionally take his version of the facts as a hypothetical to discuss isolated legal principles. The problem is that Ken Smith is adamant that his whole case rests on the issue of whether the requirement of a mental status examination was proper, and thus whether his refusal to submit to it is a proper basis for denying his application..

You're missing the point -- and, given how many times I have tried to
explain it to you, intentionally. If I have to prove my fitness, due process
demands that I have a constitutionally adequate forum in which to do so.
If I have been wrongfully denied that forum, it is a denial of due process.
At that point, the question of whether I would have been given a license,
but for that violation of my rights, speaks only to damages. Carey.

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:"Robert H. Risch" wrote: On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:40:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Your obsessive compulsion, Ken, is to personally attack these people,even though that hardly advances your case that you should be granteda law license. Unfortunately, the ad hominem, is an ingrained,substantial part of the American legal tradition.RHR
I reserve the right to defend myself against their malicious personalattacks, Robert. I'm confident you would do the same, were our positions reversed.

You brought your complaint about the Co bar to this forum for
discussion, and have had the merits of your complaint seriously
considered and the legal issues in your case discussed.

You've been given months to provide the information which
lawyers here have advised you is required for substantiation of
your accusations against the Co bar and Co Supreme Court,
and others, but you have not provided these. Instead you
have done nothing but demonstrate your propensity for
tenuous or illogical reasoning, poor legal scholarship,
slangerous innuendo and accusation, over the top personal
attack, and other self-destructive behavior, all of which
bear on and illuminate for us the CO bar's decision to
require a mental status exam in your case.

You wanted to discuss your case. That's what was done.
You owe everyone here thanks and an apology, not that
anyone expects anything that civilized from you, Kenny.

-Merlin

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 21:39:26 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:14:02 GMT, Daniel Myers <dhm@best.com> wrote:On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Jon Beaver wrote:>> That was a nice diversion -- arguing about whether Ken posted the> "motion." If we can't see the whole record, I want at least to see> the Bar's brief to the Colorado Supreme Court. Without their side of> the story, we don't even know for sure that their denial of his> application had anything at all to do with his refusal to take the> "mental status examination.">> - Jon Beaver>Agreed. I didn't know there was one other than the "motion" which I sawfor the first time this morning in Kaldis' posting. If he wants to web itinstead of posting it here he can get a free website at www.geocities.com. You simply can't get to first base with any legal analysis of this case without the WHOLE record of the proceedings. However, posting the whole record is not practical. I suggested, however, that Ken post at least the document which stated the Bar Examiners summary of their WHOLE case -- their brief to the Colorado Supreme Court. The motion that was posted only deals with the reasons why a mental status examination was requested -- a peripheral issue. It does not deal at all with the ultimate reasons why Ken Smith was denied a license. All we can do is speculate and occasionally take his version of the facts as a hypothetical to discuss isolated legal principles. The problem is that Ken Smith is adamant that his whole case rests on the issue of whether the requirement of a mental status examination was proper, and thus whether his refusal to submit to it is a proper basis for denying his application.. You're missing the point -- and, given how many times I have tried toexplain it to you, intentionally. If I have to prove my fitness, due processdemands that I have a constitutionally adequate forum in which to do so.

I can't imagine why you think the bar examiners and the Colorado
Supreme Court are not "constitutionally adequate" forums. The only
arguments I've heard from you are (1) that reproach and censure of
your conduct in the Larson matter is beyond the jurisdiction of any
tribunal for any purpose, (2) they were "biased" by the evidence
against you, and (3) any tribunal that rules against you is, ipso
facto, transformed from your judge making a ruling into your "accuser"
making an "allegation," entitling you to a new "impartial" hearing.
If I have been wrongfully denied that forum, it is a denial of due process.

You're going in circles. You weren't denied due process. In fact,
until you posted that motion, I didn't realize how hard they tried to
elicit your side of the story.
At that point, the question of whether I would have been given a license,but for that violation of my rights, speaks only to damages. Carey.

You're going in circles. In Carey v. Piphus, student Piphus was
deprived of something without any opportunity to be heard.

- Jon Beaver

Merlin wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Robert H. Risch wrote:
Your obsessive compulsion, Ken, is to personally attack these people, even though that hardly advances your case that you should be granted a law license. Unfortunately, the ad hominem, is an ingrained, substantial part of the American legal tradition.
I reserve the right to defend myself against their malicious personal attacks, Robert. I'm confident you would do the same, were our positions reversed.
You brought your complaint about the Co bar to this forum for discussion,

Actually, I'm the first one to bring it here, in a posting dated 18 June,
2003, with the Subject header "How NOT to be Admitted to the Bar". The
message contained a link to a copy of Ken's original complaint to the Federal
District Court.
and have had the merits of your complaint seriously considered and the legal issues in your case discussed.

For all the good that it's apparently done. Actually, the discussion has
done a bit of good (though perhaps not for Ken). I (a non-lawyer) have
learned quite a bit about legal issues from reading Jon's (and others')
posts.
You've been given months to provide the information which lawyers here have advised you is required for substantiation of your accusations against the Co bar and Co Supreme Court, and others, but you have not provided these. Instead you have done nothing but demonstrate your propensity for tenuous or illogical reasoning, poor legal scholarship, slanderous innuendo and accusation, over the top personal attack, and other self-destructive behavior, all of which bear on and illuminate for us the CO bar's decision to require a mental status exam in your case.
You wanted to discuss your case.

Actually, I'm not so sure that Ken wanted it discussed. Ken thinks he knows
something. Just what it is, we're not entirely sure.
That's what was done. You owe everyone here thanks and an apology, not that anyone expects anything that civilized from you, Kenny.

Hear, hear!
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote:
Suggestion for The Code Zone.... Clone Marble Madness. There isn't anythingremotely close to it for the PC.

Not a bad idea. . .

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

"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:0ijdnvkt872ei2k99en0ch0tsbrji68p56@4ax.com... "Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote:Suggestion for The Code Zone.... Clone Marble Madness. There isn't
anythingremotely close to it for the PC. Not a bad idea. . .
You might find this to be helpful.

http://www.setpixel.com/content/?ID=22

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:Merlin wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Robert H. Risch wrote:> Your obsessive compulsion, Ken, is to personally attack these people,> even though that hardly advances your case that you should be granted a> law license. Unfortunately, the ad hominem, is an ingrained, substantial> part of the American legal tradition. I reserve the right to defend myself against their malicious personal attacks, Robert. I'm confident you would do the same, were our positions reversed. You brought your complaint about the Co bar to this forum for discussion,Actually, I'm the first one to bring it here, in a posting dated 18 June,2003, with the Subject header "How NOT to be Admitted to the Bar". Themessage contained a link to a copy of Ken's original complaint to the FederalDistrict Court.

You wish to claim credit for his replys too?
Your point is noted but you can hardly claim credit for Ken's 1000+
posts to misc legal engaging on the topic, nor for his abusive 500+
liners, cross posting, and other attempts to slander posters and
spam and other disruptive net-games.

Ken was fuly engaged and referring to a misc.legal comments
within a few hours of your modest post, which was circumspect,
non-offensive, and was even complimented as responsive to earlier
discussion by one responder, a certain Larry Smith.

Ken engaged on the merits and with his full fury. So despite
your post he's the one who "brought" his complaint here.
I'll acknowledge, however, that your adding misc.legal to
your post, was both astute and appropriate. Misc.legtal is
better equipped to handle angry Ronin like Ken than are
"civilian" groups.

and have had the merits of your complaint seriously considered and the legal issues in your case discussed.For all the good that it's apparently done. Actually, the discussion hasdone a bit of good (though perhaps not for Ken). I (a non-lawyer) havelearned quite a bit about legal issues from reading Jon's (and others')posts.

It did what it had to do, perhaps even some good. It just couldn't
save Ken.

We all learned something. Perhaps you learned something more
about how law (and lawyers) help create and bind a civil society...
fifty thousand years and counting... you can't even have an army
without law, and you can't have law without lawyers.

So there you are. They are necessary and we're stuck with them.
But we need only take the best. Sorry Kenny.

-Merlin

Robert H. Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
Unfortunately, the ad hominem, is an ingrained,substantial part of the American legal tradition.RHR

Sure, I understand... Forbes doesn't believe in
allowing the poor to sue the rich, much less letting
them have (gasp) LAWYERS to do it.

But, seriously, what legal system, besides no legal
system, provides private redress without some form
of accusation of causation/fault .

-Merlin

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:21:16 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
Robert H. Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:Unfortunately, the ad hominem, is an ingrained,substantial part of the American legal tradition.RHR Sure, I understand... Forbes doesn't believe in allowing the poor to sue the rich, much less letting them have (gasp) LAWYERS to do it. But, seriously, what legal system, besides no legal system, provides private redress without some form of accusation of causation/fault . -Merlin

Examples of what I have in mind are the breast implant cases where the
successful plaintiffs merely portrayed the defendants and callous
money grubbers rather than showing they actually did harm. Another
notorious example was the defense in the OJ Simpson criminal trial,
which was based on asserting that the cops were both incompetent
bunglers in collecting and handling evidence and racists to boot.
They never gave a reasonable explanation of how those factors could
have produced the totality of the evidence against the defendant. The
ad hominem works well with incompetent triers of fact.

RHR

"Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in messagenews:0ijdnvkt872ei2k99en0ch0tsbrji68p56@4ax .com... "Bootstrap Bill" <wrcousert@yahoo.com> wrote:Suggestion for The Code Zone.... Clone Marble Madness. There isn'tanything remotely close to it for the PC. Not a bad idea. . .You might find this to be helpful.http://www.setpixel.com/content/?ID=22

Thanks for the pointer. I'd played their "Snowglobe Simon" game, which
is a very good Marble Madness clone with a Christmas theme:

http://www.setpixel.com/data/php/viewdemo.php?size=same&ID=111

Hadn't seen the design document, though. Thanks.

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

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:22:54 GMT, Robert H. Risch
<rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:21:16 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Robert H. Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:Unfortunately, the ad hominem, is an ingrained,substantial part of the American legal tradition.RHR Sure, I understand... Forbes doesn't believe in allowing the poor to sue the rich, much less letting them have (gasp) LAWYERS to do it. But, seriously, what legal system, besides no legal system, provides private redress without some form of accusation of causation/fault . -MerlinExamples of what I have in mind are the breast implant cases where thesuccessful plaintiffs merely portrayed the defendants and callousmoney grubbers rather than showing they actually did harm. Anothernotorious example was the defense in the OJ Simpson criminal trial,which was based on asserting that the cops were both incompetentbunglers in collecting and handling evidence and racists to boot.They never gave a reasonable explanation of how those factors couldhave produced the totality of the evidence against the defendant. Thead hominem works well with incompetent triers of fact.

Once the most unacceptable reason for the other side winning (you are
wrong and they are right) is rejected out of hand, it becomes clear
that the only possible explanations remaining are corruption and
stupidity.

- Jon Beaver

Robert H. Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:21:16 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Robert H. Risch <rhrisch@optonline.net> wrote:Unfortunately, the ad hominem, is an ingrained,substantial part of the American legal tradition.RHR Sure, I understand... Forbes doesn't believe in allowing the poor to sue the rich, much less letting them have (gasp) LAWYERS to do it. But, seriously, what legal system, besides no legal system, provides private redress without some form of accusation of causation/fault . -MerlinExamples of what I have in mind are the breast implant cases where thesuccessful plaintiffs merely portrayed the defendants and callousmoney grubbers rather than showing they actually did harm.

How awfull. Why didn't the Supreme Court intervene to prevent
such an appalling injustice! (Didn't most everybody settle?)

Anothernotorious example was the defense in the OJ Simpson criminal trial,which was based on asserting that the cops were both incompetentbunglers in collecting and handling evidence and racists to boot.They never gave a reasonable explanation of how those factors couldhave produced the totality of the evidence against the defendant. Thead hominem works well with incompetent triers of fact.RHR

Regarding OJ, as you know an acquittal does not require the
defendant to disprove the prosecution case, but if it did, I'd say
the defense did a fair job of proving there was "something wrong"
with the swatches, that blood "magically" appeared on a gate
after the main policeman wandered around the crime scene
with blood vials, finding blood on the third layer of the sock and
finding all that EDTA that shouldn't have been there that the
FBI guy Martz tried to cover up finding...

Of course, who could ever forget the pandemonium on
the day the gloves didn't fit! Quite a few cases of howling
apoplexy that day, eh? We all figured Geraldo was a gonner
for sure, remember?

In any event, ever since "Strangelove" the public has been
unreceptive to the idea of allowing only mad scientists to
sit on juries. Irrational? Sure, but that's just how it is.

-Merlin

Jon Beaver wrote:
It's an allegation in a complaint. What did you think it was?

Of precisely the same caliber as the inquiry panel's findings --
an allegation in a complaint. Read the statute, and tell me why
this is not so.

Jon Beaver wrote:
On 27 Sep 2003 10:37:29 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Robert H. Risch wrote"LOL. Why? Because this is where things were a few thousand posts ago whenKen brought up his situation. Jon, your ability to chase somebody around thesame circle, without the slightest sign of fatigue, just amazes me. Iwouldn't want to bet on who will drop this thing first."ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!Gee, you have a point, Robert. If the idea of who is more obsessive had nevercome up before, The issue is KEN'S fitness to practice law.

But the question of what "fitness to practice law" necessarily
informs the discussion -- insofar as if it can be applied on an ad
hoc basis, any determination is arbitrary and capricious.

And you are an obsessive-compulsive whack, Beav.

Ken Smith wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
[...]
And you are an obsessive-compulsive whack, Beav.

But Ken Smith isn't?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:57:00 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Like I said, when you can explain how it is that Feldman can beused to throw out facial challeges to a bar admission statute, whenthe Feldman Court said the precise opposite, I will listen to yourclaim that the federal courts may have been right.

Fact/Law. ****/Shinola. If I filed a complaint in federal court
asking them to declare that the Constitution is unconstitutional, do
they have to grant me a "hearing" before they dismiss my complaint?
Yes, they do. What KIND of a hearing? Well, due process requires
that they at least give me an opportunity to submit legal briefs on
why my case shouldn't be dismissed. In that brief, I have the
opportunity to argue that the Constitution is unconstitutional. That
IS my "hearing." After they hear my legal arguments and they dismiss
my complaint, are they deciding that the Constitution is
constitutional or are they simply refusing to decide my case? Guess
what? If they have jurisdiction, it's the former. If they have no
jurisdiction, it's the latter. I lose both ways, except that if I
argue that they had jurisdiction then I'm arguing that their ruling is
binding on me!

Remember that the 10th Circuit didn't rule that they didn't have
jurisdiction over your "facial challenge." They ruled that your
"facial challenge" had "no merit." They didn't "throw it out." They
decided it against you. Rooker-Feldman has nothing to do with it.

- Jon Beaver

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Merlin wrote: You brought your complaint about the Co bar to this forum for discussion, Actually, I'm the first one to bring it here, in a posting dated 18 June, 2003, with the Subject header "How NOT to be Admitted to the Bar". The message contained a link to a copy of Ken's original complaint to the Federal District Court. and have had the merits of your complaint seriously considered and the legal issues in your case discussed. For all the good that it's apparently done. Actually, the discussion has done a bit of good (though perhaps not for Ken). I (a non-lawyer) have learned quite a bit about legal issues from reading Jon's (and others') posts.

I'm glad Ted posted the district court complaint. It shows that Ken knows
basically what he's doing. It also shows what happens when such a big
mess is created that nobody wants to deal with it or nobody is able to
deal with it.

"Rooker-Feldman" is a convenient cop-out to prevent cases from getting
heard in the federal court. It differs from Younger, Pullman, etc. It
implies that what Ken would have needed to do with his civil rights case
would have been to keep it in the state courts and consolidate it with his
bar admission proceedings. Otherwise there would be something called a
"split action". See Delew v. Wagner 143 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1998).

What Ken could also have done was to cross-motion to have a *social
psychologist* examine the Bar examiners, if that is the game they wanted
to play. There should be probable cause to do that if a consequence of
the bar examiners' action would take the direction "all for one and one
for all, all against one and one against all" which it seems to have
taken.

A good social psychologist could examine their group behavior and
determine whether they acted appropriately or sociopathologically. It is
the old story of the Collective vs the Individual. They regarded Ken as a
member of the Collective who didn't conform and whose acts placed the
Collective in a bad light. A social psychologist could label pathological
bureaucratic cults in the same way they tried to label Ken.

What I would like now is for somebody to thumbnail what Ken did to that
televangelist. The Bar examiners apparently made a *political* decision
to make that religious group feel more comfortable in the world by dousing
Ken. It appears that neither Ken nor the televangelist had clean hands.
So maybe we should explore whether there might be a way for Ken to be
admitted to the bar AND to make sure that members of that religious group
are not maligned by the Bar's decision to do so.

Daniel Myers wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Merlin wrote: You brought your complaint about the Co bar to this forum for discussion, Actually, I'm the first one to bring it here, in a posting dated 18 June, 2003, with the Subject header "How NOT to be Admitted to the Bar". The message contained a link to a copy of Ken's original complaint to the Federal District Court. and have had the merits of your complaint seriously considered and the legal issues in your case discussed. For all the good that it's apparently done. Actually, the discussion has done a bit of good (though perhaps not for Ken). I (a non-lawyer) have learned quite a bit about legal issues from reading Jon's (and others') posts. I'm glad Ted posted the district court complaint. It shows that Ken knows basically what he's doing. It also shows what happens when such a big mess is created that nobody wants to deal with it or nobody is able to deal with it. "Rooker-Feldman" is a convenient cop-out to prevent cases from getting heard in the federal court. It differs from Younger, Pullman, etc. It implies that what Ken would have needed to do with his civil rights case would have been to keep it in the state courts and consolidate it with his bar admission proceedings. Otherwise there would be something called a "split action". See Delew v. Wagner 143 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1998).

The reason for my going to federal courts first, apart from advice of
counsel in the admission battle itself, is that Colorado appellate courts
are answerable to the Defendants in this matter. On its face, that is a
can of worms that no sane litigant would willingly open. :)

Although Rooker-Feldman could potentially create a split action, 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1367 (enacted after Feldman) would reunify the matters
in federal court. According to the legislative history, it was intended to
do away with the patchwork quilt of judge-made preclusion doctrines,
making federal court a one-stop shop for resolution of such a dispute.
IOW, once the camel can get his nose into the tent, the whole camel
comes in. :)

The only way the federal courts could avoid having to deal with this
issue was to disregard SCOTUS precedent -- which they did. Try to
square the notion that a facial challenge to Colorado's bar admission
statute cannot be heard in federal court (recalling the liberal pleading
standards of Conley v. Gibson) with a plain reading of Feldman, and
you'll understand my gripe with the Feds. But I planned ahead, filing
a pendent action in state court.
What Ken could also have done was to cross-motion to have a *social psychologist* examine the Bar examiners, if that is the game they wanted to play. There should be probable cause to do that if a consequence of the bar examiners' action would take the direction "all for one and one for all, all against one and one against all" which it seems to have taken.

To do that, a court has to take jurisdiction over the matter. I have
some ideas on how to proceed, but I also have counsel waiting in the
wings if my damage claims survive. :)
A good social psychologist could examine their group behavior and determine whether they acted appropriately or sociopathologically. It is the old story of the Collective vs the Individual. They regarded Ken as a member of the Collective who didn't conform and whose acts placed the Collective in a bad light. A social psychologist could label pathological bureaucratic cults in the same way they tried to label Ken. What I would like now is for somebody to thumbnail what Ken did to that televangelist.

It's still on line at http://members.freespeech.org/boblarson. During the
pendency of the dispute, I was instrumental in getting exposes published
in World, Cornerstone, and on NBC. Later, I helped Inside Edition to
do a first-rate hidden-camera expose.
The Bar examiners apparently made a *political* decision to make that religious group feel more comfortable in the world by dousing Ken. It appears that neither Ken nor the televangelist had clean hands.

In what respect? I merely exposed a televangelist, and the televangelist
retaliated against me for doing so. After all, I did ruin his perfectly good
ATM machine.... :)

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:04:01 GMT, Daniel Myers <dhm@best.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Merlin wrote: You brought your complaint about the Co bar to this forum for discussion, Actually, I'm the first one to bring it here, in a posting dated 18 June, 2003, with the Subject header "How NOT to be Admitted to the Bar". The message contained a link to a copy of Ken's original complaint to the Federal District Court. and have had the merits of your complaint seriously considered and the legal issues in your case discussed. For all the good that it's apparently done. Actually, the discussion has done a bit of good (though perhaps not for Ken). I (a non-lawyer) have learned quite a bit about legal issues from reading Jon's (and others') posts.I'm glad Ted posted the district court complaint. It shows that Ken knowsbasically what he's doing. It also shows what happens when such a bigmess is created that nobody wants to deal with it or nobody is able todeal with it."Rooker-Feldman" is a convenient cop-out to prevent cases from gettingheard in the federal court. It differs from Younger, Pullman, etc. Itimplies that what Ken would have needed to do with his civil rights casewould have been to keep it in the state courts and consolidate it with hisbar admission proceedings. Otherwise there would be something called a"split action". See Delew v. Wagner 143 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1998).What Ken could also have done was to cross-motion to have a *socialpsychologist* examine the Bar examiners, if that is the game they wantedto play. There should be probable cause to do that if a consequence ofthe bar examiners' action would take the direction "all for one and onefor all, all against one and one against all" which it seems to havetaken.A good social psychologist could examine their group behavior anddetermine whether they acted appropriately or sociopathologically. It isthe old story of the Collective vs the Individual. They regarded Ken as amember of the Collective who didn't conform and whose acts placed theCollective in a bad light. A social psychologist could label pathologicalbureaucratic cults in the same way they tried to label Ken.What I would like now is for somebody to thumbnail what Ken did to thattelevangelist. The Bar examiners apparently made a *political* decisionto make that religious group feel more comfortable in the world by dousingKen. It appears that neither Ken nor the televangelist had clean hands.So maybe we should explore whether there might be a way for Ken to beadmitted to the bar AND to make sure that members of that religious groupare not maligned by the Bar's decision to do so.

I love it!!!!


- Jon Beaver

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jon Beaver wrote:
I love it!!!!

LOL

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:04:01 GMT, Daniel Myers <dhm@best.com> wrote:On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Merlin wrote: > You brought your complaint about the Co bar to this forum for discussion, Actually, I'm the first one to bring it here, in a posting dated 18 June, 2003, with the Subject header "How NOT to be Admitted to the Bar". The message contained a link to a copy of Ken's original complaint to the Federal District Court. > and have had the merits of your complaint seriously considered and the > legal issues in your case discussed. For all the good that it's apparently done. Actually, the discussion has done a bit of good (though perhaps not for Ken). I (a non-lawyer) have learned quite a bit about legal issues from reading Jon's (and others') posts.I'm glad Ted posted the district court complaint. It shows that Ken knowsbasically what he's doing. It also shows what happens when such a bigmess is created that nobody wants to deal with it or nobody is able todeal with it."Rooker-Feldman" is a convenient cop-out to prevent cases from gettingheard in the federal court. It differs from Younger, Pullman, etc. Itimplies that what Ken would have needed to do with his civil rights casewould have been to keep it in the state courts and consolidate it with hisbar admission proceedings. Otherwise there would be something called a"split action". See Delew v. Wagner 143 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 1998).What Ken could also have done was to cross-motion to have a *socialpsychologist* examine the Bar examiners, if that is the game they wantedto play. There should be probable cause to do that if a consequence ofthe bar examiners' action would take the direction "all for one and onefor all, all against one and one against all" which it seems to havetaken.A good social psychologist could examine their group behavior anddetermine whether they acted appropriately or sociopathologically. It isthe old story of the Collective vs the Individual. They regarded Ken as amember of the Collective who didn't conform and whose acts placed theCollective in a bad light. A social psychologist could label pathologicalbureaucratic cults in the same way they tried to label Ken.
What I would like now is for somebody to thumbnail what Ken did to thattelevangelist. The Bar examiners apparently made a *political* decisionto make that religious group feel more comfortable in the world by dousingKen. It appears that neither Ken nor the televangelist had clean hands.So maybe we should explore whether there might be a way for Ken to beadmitted to the bar AND to make sure that members of that religious groupare not maligned by the Bar's decision to do so. I love it!!!!

Glad you do. I doubt that any court would let me explore such
an avenue of investigation in any event, as it does appear a bit far
afield. A court might let a Johnnie Cochrane or a Pamela Mackey
"go there," but I'm not going to get any close calls -- because our
judges are often biased and corrupt. And I'd prefer to focus on
more tangible things -- like an explanation of why they took four
months to do what the law requires them to do in one, for instance.

Niebuhr's observation that groups are less moral than individuals
is, nonetheless, an accurate one.