>Ken Smith wrote

"Whatever the standard actually is, the minimum standard must at least be
probable cause pursuant to the Colorado constitution -- and therein lies the
rub. If they prefer to pretend that the Hearing Panel chair is an "independent
trier of fact," then the conclusory allegations presented in the motion cannot
meet this standard as a matter of law, but if she has access to the Bar's
files, she is not an independent trier of fact, and the order has not been
issued by a "neutral and detached magistrate." No matter how you cut it, it's
impossible to get a fair hearing on the issue."


So, its kinda the legal equivalent of getting some work done on your house, but
the housing inspector is like co-owner of the contracting company.

What, shoddy workmanship ??!! But it *passed* inspection !!!

Solar

in article 20030916180558.18258.00000916@mb-m13.aol.com, SolarChase at
solarchase@aol.com wrote on 9/17/03 7:05 AM:
So, its kinda the legal equivalent of getting some work done on your house, but the housing inspector is like co-owner of the contracting company. What, shoddy workmanship ??!! But it *passed* inspection !!! Solar

I always am amused when people complain that judges can't judge the law,
because they are all in some grand conspiracy of lawyers. Whoever writes
that doesn't know lawyers, if they think that all lawyers could agree on
anything. Some are radically left wing, others are reactionary right wing,
and still others are moderate, and some don't care about politics at all.
Some are deeply religious, some are atheistic, and some are moderate, and
some don't care about religion at all.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote I always am amused when people complain that judges can't judge the law, because they are all in some grand conspiracy of lawyers. Whoever writes that doesn't know lawyers, if they think that all lawyers could agree on anything.

They do all agree on one thing; to be Officers of the Court. They are
'Members of the Bar'. They are 'my esteemed colleague' and 'learned
counsel'.
They are a closed shop; they take care of their own; they control access to
the government's judicial branch.
It's not like they have to agree on anything except the common self-interest
of the profession.

Chas

in article pPKdnYoqYpfEEPqiXTWJjQ@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/17/03 7:23 AM:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote I always am amused when people complain that judges can't judge the law, because they are all in some grand conspiracy of lawyers. Whoever writes that doesn't know lawyers, if they think that all lawyers could agree on anything. They do all agree on one thing; to be Officers of the Court. They are 'Members of the Bar'. They are 'my esteemed colleague' and 'learned counsel'. They are a closed shop; they take care of their own; they control access to the government's judicial branch. It's not like they have to agree on anything except the common self-interest of the profession. Chas

So you think the judges shouldn't have legal training? Maybe beauticians or
dentists or accountants, anything except training in the law? Interesting!

It is very interesting that you should think that knowledge and training in
a field should bar you from practicing in that field.

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote So you think the judges shouldn't have legal training?

I don't think judges need to be lawyers- and, very often, they have not
been. Of course that was some time ago and isn't the common practice now.
'Legal training' could take a lot of different forms.
It is very interesting that you should think that knowledge and training
in a field should bar you from practicing in that field.

Only in your foolish restatement to your own agenda.
You're probably a good lawyer- but don't seem to have the intellectual
integrity to be a judge.
And, it's so often the way.

Chas

In article <pPKdnYoqYpfEEPqiXTWJjQ@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<chas@chasclements.com> wrote:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote I always am amused when people complain that judges can't judge the law, because they are all in some grand conspiracy of lawyers. Whoever writes that doesn't know lawyers, if they think that all lawyers could agree on anything.They do all agree on one thing; to be Officers of the Court. They are'Members of the Bar'. They are 'my esteemed colleague' and 'learnedcounsel'.

This is no different than all plumbers agree to be plumbers, or astronauts
agree to be astronauts. "My esteemed colleague" is simply a term of
deference, though more often not is used to soften an otherwise scathing
attack (i.e. "My esteemed colleague would have you believe what is really
a ridiculous argument.")
They are a closed shop; they take care of their own; they control access tothe government's judicial branch.

They don't "control" access to anything. Sue someone yourself. If you're
sued or charged, represent yourself. Lawyers "control" the judicial
branch in the same way legislators control the legislative branch or the
President controls the executive branch. Except its easier to become a
lawyer than President or a Congressman.
It's not like they have to agree on anything except the common self-interestof the profession.

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wroteThey do all agree on one thing; to be Officers of the Court. They are'Members of the Bar'. They are 'my esteemed colleague' and 'learnedcounsel'. This is no different than all plumbers agree to be plumbers, or astronauts agree to be astronauts.

Don't be disingenuous.
They don't "control" access to anything.

Sure they do- it's natural.
We call it 'guarding the rice bowl'.
Sue someone yourself. If you're sued or charged, represent yourself.

Oh No-
I've seen what you guys do to pro pers. I would buy all the influence I
could afford.
That's what the Scales measure; who brought the most gold.
Lawyers "control" the judicial branch in the same way legislators control the legislative branch or the President controls the executive branch.

Except they're unelected and unpoliced.
Except its easier to become a lawyer than President or a Congressman.

And so many Presidents and Congressmen are lawyers themselves- or have the
degree and do another kind of business with it.
It's not like they have to agree on anything except the common
self-interestof the profession.

Chas

In article <35icnQaD1enQUPqiXTWJkA@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<chas@chasclements.com> wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wroteThey do all agree on one thing; to be Officers of the Court. They are'Members of the Bar'. They are 'my esteemed colleague' and 'learnedcounsel'. This is no different than all plumbers agree to be plumbers, or astronauts agree to be astronauts.Don't be disingenuous.

Right. Because lawyers are qualitatively different than any other profession.
They don't "control" access to anything.Sure they do- it's natural.We call it 'guarding the rice bowl'. Sue someone yourself. If you're sued or charged, represent yourself.Oh No-I've seen what you guys do to pro pers. I would buy all the influence Icould afford.

Actually, most judges I know - and there is case law on this - bend over
backwards giving pro se parties extra latitude due to their lack of
expertise with the rules of procedure and evidence. It's not like you get
more latitutde applying for a certificate of occupancy for a building you
built yourself on the grounds that you're not a pro carpenter.
That's what the Scales measure; who brought the most gold.

Uh-huh.
Lawyers "control" the judicial branch in the same way legislators control the legislative branch or the President controls the executive branch.Except they're unelected and unpoliced.

Right. It's even better. Anyone can become a lawyer, much easier than a
politician. And someone has complete control over who their lawyer is,
much more so than they have individual control over who their legislator
or governor is.

Calling lawyers unpoliced is just dumb.
Except its easier to become a lawyer than President or a Congressman.And so many Presidents and Congressmen are lawyers themselves- or have thedegree and do another kind of business with it.

Not true. We haven't had a President with a law degree in a long time.
And the majority of Congressmen are not lawyers nor do they possess a J.D.

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Right. Because lawyers are qualitatively different than any other
profession.

Yes; they are Officers of the Court.
Actually, most judges I know - and there is case law on this - bend over backwards giving pro se parties extra latitude due to their lack of expertise with the rules of procedure and evidence. It's not like you get more latitutde applying for a certificate of occupancy for a building you built yourself on the grounds that you're not a pro carpenter.

I've seen them be absolutely punctilious- in the face of the directive to
'liberally construe', as well as holding pro pers to standards they don't
hold lawyers to- like material deceptions to the court.
That's what the Scales measure; who brought the most gold. Uh-huh.

All the justice you can buy.
Calling lawyers unpoliced is just dumb.

Calling the sham regulatory committees a policing body is just dumb.
Not true. We haven't had a President with a law degree in a long time.

You mean like Bill Clinton?

Chas

In article <e8-dnTia68jyf_qiU-KYvA@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<chas@chasclements.com> wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Right. Because lawyers are qualitatively different than any otherprofession.Yes; they are Officers of the Court. Actually, most judges I know - and there is case law on this - bend over backwards giving pro se parties extra latitude due to their lack of expertise with the rules of procedure and evidence. It's not like you get more latitutde applying for a certificate of occupancy for a building you built yourself on the grounds that you're not a pro carpenter.I've seen them be absolutely punctilious- in the face of the directive to'liberally construe', as well as holding pro pers to standards they don'thold lawyers to- like material deceptions to the court.

Well, if you have anecdotal evidence as to how a few judges act, then far
be it for me to criticize you for making broad generalizations to all
judges, jurisdictions, and courts!
That's what the Scales measure; who brought the most gold. Uh-huh.All the justice you can buy.

Yet you have said you work for a lawyer, is that right? So aren't you
part of the alleged problem?
Calling lawyers unpoliced is just dumb.Calling the sham regulatory committees a policing body is just dumb. Not true. We haven't had a President with a law degree in a long time.You mean like Bill Clinton?

Whose law license was suspended, mind you. So much for sham regulatory
committees. When was the last President with a law licesen before him?

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Well, if you have anecdotal evidence as to how a few judges act, then far be it for me to criticize you for making broad generalizations to all judges, jurisdictions, and courts!

It's just that I hear the same stories from all across the USA; every kind
of jurisdiction, every level of judge, every type of lawyer whether he's for
the State or against.
Are all these stories from disgruntled participants in the legal process? If
so, what made them so disgruntled?
Are the newspaper stories wrong? Are they made up? Why did they pick lawyers
to vilify?
I'm old enough to remember when lawyers were considered an honorable
profession- what changed? Is it all a plot against you because we don't
understand our own Rights and Guarantees and all this **** you're doing is
actually honorable and done with integrity?
Yet you have said you work for a lawyer, is that right? So aren't you part of the alleged problem?

Not at all- I've worked for doctors too- that doesn't make me part of that
problem either. I'm an appraiser for many years; court qualified expert
witness in some areas. I have also done specialty security work for lawyers
for a couple of decades.
You mean like Bill Clinton? Whose law license was suspended, mind you. So much for sham regulatory committees. When was the last President with a law licesen before him?

Nixon, probably- I don't know what Ford's degree was, Carter an engineer,
Reagan a Hollywood slug, Bush a spymaster; Clinton an Honours graduate, Bush
Jr. a playboy dilettante.

Chas

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:23:25 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote I always am amused when people complain that judges can't judge the law, because they are all in some grand conspiracy of lawyers. Whoever writes that doesn't know lawyers, if they think that all lawyers could agree on anything.They do all agree on one thing; to be Officers of the Court. They are'Members of the Bar'. They are 'my esteemed colleague' and 'learnedcounsel'.They are a closed shop; they take care of their own; they control access tothe government's judicial branch.It's not like they have to agree on anything except the common self-interestof the profession.

Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a person
from misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law? The validity
of your point of view turns on this simple question.

- Jon Beaver

"Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote in message news:<JIicnQWuMKjqJPqiU-KYvw@comcast.com>... "Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote So you think the judges shouldn't have legal training? I don't think judges need to be lawyers- and, very often, they have not been. Of course that was some time ago and isn't the common practice now. 'Legal training' could take a lot of different forms.

I actually saw what happens when judges are not lawyers. According to
the Texas constitution over twenty years ago, county judges are
elected and don't have to be lawyers (although they usually are).
While I was there, a lawyer judge was defeated by the ex-mayor of the
county's largest city. Guess what happened?

The judge kept relying on the county attorney for advice during trial,
even though the county attorney was representing the county as party
to a lawsuit. Talk about possible conflicts of interest....
It is very interesting that you should think that knowledge and training in a field should bar you from practicing in that field.
Only in your foolish restatement to your own agenda. You're probably a good lawyer- but don't seem to have the intellectual integrity to be a judge. And, it's so often the way. Chas

That is not only insulting, it is pure nonsense. Using your logic, I
assume that you avoid doctors having medical degrees and certification
by the state? After all, why require knowledge of medicine in order to
operate on someone?

"Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote in message news:<35icnQaD1enQUPqiXTWJkA@comcast.com>... "Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Sue someone yourself. If you're sued or charged, represent yourself. Oh No- I've seen what you guys do to pro pers. I would buy all the influence I could afford. That's what the Scales measure; who brought the most gold.

It really sounds like you are simply a bitter loser in a litigation.
If so, sorry you lost your case, but have you ever thought that you
deserved to lose?

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:
Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a personfrom misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?

This ought to be a civil matter.
--
Rahul

Ernest wrote

"It really sounds like you are simply a bitter loser in a litigation. If so,
sorry you lost your case, but have you ever thought that you deserved to lose?"

Well, *I'm* not. Is it a requirement that you have to have been a bitter loser
in litigation to see that Chas might be making some sense ?

Quick question for you Ernest: If a governing body doesnt follow its own rules,
who punishes them for that violation ??

have a GREAT day !!!!
Solar

in article 20030917042352.26651.00000803@mb-m26.aol.com, SolarChase at
solarchase@aol.com wrote on 9/17/03 5:23 PM:
Ernest wrote "It really sounds like you are simply a bitter loser in a litigation. If so, sorry you lost your case, but have you ever thought that you deserved to lose?" Well, *I'm* not. Is it a requirement that you have to have been a bitter loser in litigation to see that Chas might be making some sense ? Quick question for you Ernest: If a governing body doesnt follow its own rules, who punishes them for that violation ?? have a GREAT day !!!! Solar

No, but there is usually such a reason for the more devout haters on the
net. Usually, someone makes blanket statements that all (any profession) are
crooks, bad guys, etc., that someone usually has a personal history that
causes his/her paranoia.

In answer to your question, the violation can be reviewed up to the Supreme
Court.

In article <bk958h$1br$1@blue.rahul.net>,
c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a personfrom misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?This ought to be a civil matter.

It is, but it's also a criminal matter.

Do you not think there should be criminal fraud statutes?

In article <tOqdnWbOqbiwdPqiU-KYvA@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<chas@chasclements.com> wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Yet you have said you work for a lawyer, is that right? So aren't you part of the alleged problem?Not at all- I've worked for doctors too- that doesn't make me part of thatproblem either. I'm an appraiser for many years; court qualified expertwitness in some areas. I have also done specialty security work for lawyersfor a couple of decades.

Court-qualified expert witness? So people can pay you to testify for
them? sounds to be like the kind of justice that can be bought. ;)

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article 20030917042352.26651.00000803@mb-m26.aol.com, SolarChase at solarchase@aol.com wrote on 9/17/03 5:23 PM: Ernest wrote "It really sounds like you are simply a bitter loser in a litigation. If so, sorry you lost your case, but have you ever thought that you deserved to lose?" Well, *I'm* not. Is it a requirement that you have to have been a bitter loser in litigation to see that Chas might be making some sense ? Quick question for you Ernest: If a governing body doesnt follow its own rules, who punishes them for that violation ?? have a GREAT day !!!! Solar No, but there is usually such a reason for the more devout haters on the net. Usually, someone makes blanket statements that all (any profession) are crooks, bad guys, etc., that someone usually has a personal history that causes his/her paranoia.

Ever consider the possibility that the system might be irredeeemably
corrupt -- like it was in the old Soviet Union?
In answer to your question, the violation can be reviewed up to the Supreme Court.

In other words, you have rights, but no right to a remedy. Just like
the serfs of medieval Europe, you are forced to come on bended knee
to the court of King William of Rehnquist and beg for your most basic
of human rights!

Meanwhile, our own Marie Schalltionette sticks his nose in the air
and haughtily proclaims, "Let them drink Heineken!" :)

Chas wrote

"And so many Presidents and Congressmen are lawyers themselves....."

Larry responded

"Not true. We havent had a President with a law degree in a long time."

LOL !!!!!!!!!! Wellll.... considering that one president equals four years and
you forget about Clinton, i guess you're right, Larry. Afterwards, the question
was asked "who was the last president to have a law degree" and the guess was
Nixon, only because Chas wasnt sure of Ford.

Well, lets find out, shall we ?? According to whitehouse.gov, Jerry Ford...

"From 1965 to 1973, he was House Minority Leader. Born in Omaha, Nebraska, in
1913, he grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He starred on the University of
Michigan football team, then went to Yale, where he served as assistant coach
while earning his law degree. During World War II he attained the rank of
lieutenant commander in the Navy. After the war he returned to Grand Rapids,
where he began the practice of law, and entered Republican politics."

Yep. "Ford" it is.

Carter, Reagan, both Bush-ers... all presidents with no law degree. Gosh, that
IS true. Still, you cant say there werent a few chances for lawyers to end the
drought.

Consider: Spiro Agnew. The Vice-baby who went out with the Nixon bathwater.
Grad of University of Baltimore Law School, 1947. More people should know about
"tax evasion," shouldnt they ??

Bob Dole, Law degree from Washburn Municipal University, 1952. Funny to think
he was a presidential candidate before his Pepsi-mate Britney Spears was born,
huh ??

Walter Mondale. One Heartbeat away from the big chair. University Of Minnesota
Law School graduate, 1956.

Geraldine Ferrarro. Graduated Fordham Law School, then worked in her DA's
office. Lots of heartbeats away from the big chair, but still made news.

Michael Dukakis, Harvard Law School Graduate 1960.

Lloyd Bentsen, University Of Texas Law School Graduate 1942.

Dan Quayle. Another heartbeat away. AND a Law Degree from Indiana University,
1974. I guess they *dont* teach spelling in law school. hmmm.

Joe Lieberman. Graduated Yale Law School, 1967.

Al Gore, of course, dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School.... and ran for
congress instead.

Add Jack "i was a NFL Quarterback, vote for me" Kemp to the list, and you find
none of them became president because they, well, sucked.

So, only 6 (and 1/2) candidates out of a possible 18 since Nixon werent
lawyers, yet they still cant capture the Big Chair. Hmmmm. Maybe they should
get a better public relations department, eh ?

have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Court-qualified expert witness? So people can pay you to testify for them? sounds to be like the kind of justice that can be bought. ;)

Appraiser.
I work with the object(s), not a person. The thing either is what it is or
it's not; damaged, or not. I have no input into the question before the
court, only to the 'thing'.

Chas

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@justice.com> wrote It really sounds like you are simply a bitter loser in a litigation. If so, sorry you lost your case, but have you ever thought that you deserved to lose?

Nope- In essence, I've never been involved in litigation on my own behalf.
The couple of times that I've put in insurance claims and such, I've always
won.
My observations come from watching the court process, and to some extent
being privy to the intricacies of the various cases.
The big case that I watched was a police abuse case. The various
administrators; judges, lawyers and staff- much less the cops themselves-
were *casual* co-conspirators to cover-up, intimidate witnesses, fabricate
evidence, obstruct the process. I was astounded and appalled.
When it became obvious that it was an institutional standard, my surprise
turned to disgust.
And, the public perception of this court is the same. The newspapers have
been full of reports of the lying, stonewalling, cover-ups, more lying,
evidence tampering, more lying- three Sheriffs in a row have had to resign
when their conduct became so egregious that even their confrere couldn't
cover it.

Chas

"Ernest Schaal" <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote No, but there is usually such a reason for the more devout haters on the net. Usually, someone makes blanket statements that all (any profession)
are crooks, bad guys, etc., that someone usually has a personal history that causes his/her paranoia.

One has three ways to examine the justice system; as an administrator, as
the object of the exercise, or as an uninvolved observer.
I am the latter.

Chas

On 17 Sep 2003 08:23:52 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Ernest wrote"It really sounds like you are simply a bitter loser in a litigation. If so,sorry you lost your case, but have you ever thought that you deserved to lose?"Well, *I'm* not. Is it a requirement that you have to have been a bitter loserin litigation to see that Chas might be making some sense ?Quick question for you Ernest: If a governing body doesnt follow its own rules,who punishes them for that violation ??

Don't limit your thinking to the crime/punishment paradigm.

- Jon Beaver

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:16:17 +0000 (UTC),
c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a personfrom misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?This ought to be a civil matter.

Sue the lying bastard from prison?

- Jon Beaver

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:16:31 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote Court-qualified expert witness? So people can pay you to testify for them? sounds to be like the kind of justice that can be bought. ;)Appraiser.I work with the object(s), not a person. The thing either is what it is orit's not; damaged, or not. I have no input into the question before thecourt, only to the 'thing'.

This is too funny! "Court qualified expert witness!" Some people
actually think there is such a thing!

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver wrote:
Chas wrote: Larry wrote:
Court-qualified expert witness? So people can pay you to testify for them? sounds to be like the kind of justice that can be bought. ;)
Appraiser.
I work with the object(s), not a person. The thing either is what it is or it's not; damaged, or not. I have no input into the question before the court, only to the 'thing'.
This is too funny! "Court qualified expert witness!" Some people actually think there is such a thing!

Don't they call them "hired guns" in the trade? I'm sure Larry's seen more
than his share of them.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote This is too funny! "Court qualified expert witness!" Some people
actually think there is such a thing!

And there is; when you've been qualified in court as an expert witness.
Don't they call them "hired guns" in the trade? I'm sure Larry's seen
more than his share of them.

'Appraisers' seldom fall under the rubric of 'hired gun'.

Chas

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a person from misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?

You mean as an exclusion of metaphysical negatoriality?
The validity of your point of view turns on this simple question.

What makes you think so?

Chas

in article 3F684765.C2D859B7@concentric.net, Ken Smith at
Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/17/03 8:31 PM:
Ernest Schaal wrote: No, but there is usually such a reason for the more devout haters on the net. Usually, someone makes blanket statements that all (any profession) are crooks, bad guys, etc., that someone usually has a personal history that causes his/her paranoia. Ever consider the possibility that the system might be irredeeemably corrupt -- like it was in the old Soviet Union?

Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to
require a mental exam?

That seems a lot more probable than your statement that the system is
"irredeemably" corrupt.

In answer to your question, the violation can be reviewed up to the Supreme Court. In other words, you have rights, but no right to a remedy. Just like the serfs of medieval Europe, you are forced to come on bended knee to the court of King William of Rehnquist and beg for your most basic of human rights! Meanwhile, our own Marie Schalltionette sticks his nose in the air and haughtily proclaims, "Let them drink Heineken!" :)

Your constant use of ridiculous hyperbole causes me to think, more and more,
that the bar examiners would be violating their obligations to the state if
they did not demand the mental status exam.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:41:41 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: Chas wrote: Larry wrote:> Court-qualified expert witness? So people can pay you to testify for> them? sounds to be like the kind of justice that can be bought. ;) Appraiser. I work with the object(s), not a person. The thing either is what it is or it's not; damaged, or not. I have no input into the question before the court, only to the 'thing'. This is too funny! "Court qualified expert witness!" Some people actually think there is such a thing!Don't they call them "hired guns" in the trade? I'm sure Larry's seen morethan his share of them.

There is no such thing as a "court qualified expert witness" in the
sense that the witness is pre-qualified in advance of his testimony.
You have to "qualify" them each time they testify, and whether they
qualify sometimes depends on the precise issue in the case. Opposing
counsel may have his reasons for challenging the qualifications of the
expert witness in one case, but not in another. Ultimately, the judge
does rule on whether sufficient foundation has been laid as to the
witness's qualifications in that matter. To be sure, one very common
question is whether they have ever testified as an expert in any other
case, but it is subject to an objection and some very technical rules.

To claim to "be" a "court qualified expert witness" is to reveal
dishonesty or ignorance.

- Jon Beaver

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:00:59 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote This is too funny! "Court qualified expert witness!" Some peopleactually think there is such a thing!And there is; when you've been qualified in court as an expert witness.

Idiot.

- Jon Beaver

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 12:15:57 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a person from misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?You mean as an exclusion of metaphysical negatoriality? The validity of your point of view turns on this simple question.What makes you think so?

Give me your answer and I'll explain. But I suspect you understand me
perfectly.

- Jon Beaver

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote There is no such thing as a "court qualified expert witness" in the sense that the witness is pre-qualified in advance of his testimony.

An answer in search of a question.
In fact, having survived a court qualification is a credential that is of
value to an appraiser. It doesn't guarantee that you'll survive it again,
but it's a reasonable indication of familiarity with the process. I'm
recommended by museums; listed in the various service directories to the
trade and so on.
.....To be sure, one very common question is whether they have ever testified as an expert in any other case, but it is subject to an objection and some very technical rules.

Happily, I've never had that experience.
To claim to "be" a "court qualified expert witness" is to reveal dishonesty or ignorance.

Not at all. What is a credential in my business is a service to yours. I
have broad credentials in my field, only one of which is having been
qualified as an expert witness. More often, my work is with collections,
probate appraisals, insurance claims and so on. I'm also a conservator of
certain kinds of things, so my expertise has some other applications as
well.

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

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a person from misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?You mean as an exclusion of metaphysical negatoriality? The validity of your point of view turns on this simple question.What makes you think so? Give me your answer and I'll explain. But I suspect you understand me perfectly.

Yer simpleminded if you think I would hand a lawyer an hypothetical with
open-ended exclusives.

Chas

In article <3F6880B5.1CE163A3@worldnet.att.net>, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: Chas wrote: Larry wrote:> Court-qualified expert witness? So people can pay you to testify for> them? sounds to be like the kind of justice that can be bought. ;) Appraiser. I work with the object(s), not a person. The thing either is what it is or it's not; damaged, or not. I have no input into the question before the court, only to the 'thing'. This is too funny! "Court qualified expert witness!" Some people actually think there is such a thing!Don't they call them "hired guns" in the trade? I'm sure Larry's seen morethan his share of them.

What makes you say that? Generally speaking, experts are used far less in
criminal cases than civil ones. Medical experts and the like are the most
common ones that I've come across.

Larry wrote:
In article <35icnQaD1enQUPqiXTWJkA@comcast.com>, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote

[snip]
Except its easier to become a lawyer than President or a Congressman.And so many Presidents and Congressmen are lawyers themselves- or have thedegree and do another kind of business with it. Not true. We haven't had a President with a law degree in a long time.

You probably don't think that much of him, but you *do* remember
Mr. Hillary Rodham, don't you?

Try to get out more. Leave the fantasy baseball team at home. :)

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article 3F684765.C2D859B7@concentric.net, Ken Smith at Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/17/03 8:31 PM: Ernest Schaal wrote: No, but there is usually such a reason for the more devout haters on the net. Usually, someone makes blanket statements that all (any profession) are crooks, bad guys, etc., that someone usually has a personal history that causes his/her paranoia. Ever consider the possibility that the system might be irredeeemably corrupt -- like it was in the old Soviet Union? Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to require a mental exam?

I note again for the record that you are evading the issue, Schallow.

"Good cause" is the standard adopted in the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure -- and as it is used elsewhere in the Rules (most notably, in
Rules 34 and 35, which were the subject of Schlagenhauf), we have a
pretty fair notion of what it means. The bar would have to show good
cause, which means more than "conclusory allegations of questionable
relevance to the issue at hand" . . . that is, if it actually followed the law.

Thus, the issue is not whether they had probable cause, but whether
they alleged those facts they would have needed as a condition prece-
dent to justifying such a search. And you have seen what they alleged
-- the functional equivalent of Gollum's "'Cause we WANTS it!"

An *independent* tribunal would have laughed them out of court.

That seems a lot more probable than your statement that the system is "irredeemably" corrupt.

I cite case law. You play with yourself.
In answer to your question, the violation can be reviewed up to the Supreme Court. In other words, you have rights, but no right to a remedy. Just like the serfs of medieval Europe, you are forced to come on bended knee to the court of King William of Rehnquist and beg for your most basic of human rights! Meanwhile, our own Marie Schalltionette sticks his nose in the air and haughtily proclaims, "Let them drink Heineken!" :) Your constant use of ridiculous hyperbole

....most certainly proves that I am mentally, morally, and ethically fit to
be a lawyer.
causes me to think,

From what I have read heretofore, that must be a novel experience
for you.

Address the issue. If you can't appeal a decision affecting your rights
as a matter of right, how are you any better off -- from the standpoint
of basic human rights -- than a medieval serf?

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article 20030916180558.18258.00000916@mb-m13.aol.com, SolarChase at solarchase@aol.com wrote on 9/17/03 7:05 AM: So, its kinda the legal equivalent of getting some work done on your house, but the housing inspector is like co-owner of the contracting company. What, shoddy workmanship ??!! But it *passed* inspection !!! Solar I always am amused when people complain that judges can't judge the law,

They can't, unless they can say that they are truly independent and
disinterested. We have seen again and again that when a judge has a
personal interest in a controversy -- and yes, even a vague political
interest (Florida, New Jersey, SCOTUS, Colorado, and now, the
Ninth Circuit) -- they will *invariably* vote in accordance with that
interest.

But none dare call it *corruption*, right, Schallow?

Chas wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote> Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a person> from misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?You mean as an exclusion of metaphysical negatoriality?> The validity> of your point of view turns on this simple question.What makes you think so? Give me your answer and I'll explain. But I suspect you understand me perfectly. Yer simpleminded if you think I would hand a lawyer an hypothetical with open-ended exclusives.

He's simple-minded. Jon wants us to play by his rules, and he hates
it when we insist upon fair rules. :)

"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote Yer simpleminded if you think I would hand a lawyer an hypothetical with open-ended exclusives. He's simple-minded. Jon wants us to play by his rules, and he hates it when we insist upon fair rules. :)

I do find that he's stuck with taking a concept to the illogical extreme and
restatement as debate devices- as opposed to simply addressing the fookin'
question.

Chas

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:36:55 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote> Do you think there should be no law of any kind prohibiting a person> from misrepresenting his qualifications to practice law?You mean as an exclusion of metaphysical negatoriality?> The validity> of your point of view turns on this simple question.What makes you think so? Give me your answer and I'll explain. But I suspect you understand me perfectly.Yer simpleminded if you think I would hand a lawyer an hypothetical withopen-ended exclusives.

Sorry, Charlie! Anything other than an unqualified "yes" to my
question leaves you with a lot of explaining to do.

- Jon Beaver

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:33:17 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote: in article 3F684765.C2D859B7@concentric.net, Ken Smith at Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/17/03 8:31 PM: Ernest Schaal wrote:> No, but there is usually such a reason for the more devout haters on the> net. Usually, someone makes blanket statements that all (any profession) are> crooks, bad guys, etc., that someone usually has a personal history that> causes his/her paranoia. Ever consider the possibility that the system might be irredeeemably corrupt -- like it was in the old Soviet Union? Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to require a mental exam? I note again for the record that you are evading the issue, Schallow. "Good cause" is the standard adopted in the Colorado Rules of CivilProcedure -- and as it is used elsewhere in the Rules (most notably, inRules 34 and 35, which were the subject of Schlagenhauf), we have apretty fair notion of what it means. The bar would have to show goodcause, which means more than "conclusory allegations of questionablerelevance to the issue at hand" . . . that is, if it actually followed the law. Thus, the issue is not whether they had probable cause, but whetherthey alleged those facts they would have needed as a condition prece-dent to justifying such a search. And you have seen what they alleged-- the functional equivalent of Gollum's "'Cause we WANTS it!"

Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to
require a mental exam? . . . . . . .(Apparently not)

- Jon Beaver

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Sorry, Charlie! Anything other than an unqualified "yes" to my question leaves you with a lot of explaining to do.

Few questions are so simple as to answer in the metaphysically exclusive,
counselor. For you to leap to the illogical extreme is intellectually
dishonest, and totally lawyerlike.
We come back to Smith's problem with the examination process for admission
to the practice of law.
As with anyone else in an 'arts' practice, one looks at the results, not the
paper hanging on the wall. The more important the question, the closer the
scrutiny.
Smith has demonstrated in these exchanges alone that he is mentally fit to
practice law- it's self-evident. The standard of 'competence' is certainly
met- so what is the possible standard to which he must rise to be 'fit' to
practice law? No one knows; or if knows, says.
It's a private club of esquires with a position of power they don't want
threatened. I suspect that an applicant for the license who seemed at all
willing to question the status quo could very well be subject to
self-interested abuse of power by the Brotherhood.
call me a cynic-

Chas

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to require a mental exam? . . . . . . .(Apparently not)

Then they should be prepared to articulate it; and the standards by which it
was critiqued.
His performance in this arena alone is demonstrative of his competency and
'fitness'.
While I find his views differing from mine- and offensive in some lights- he
seems like a sterling example of what a lawyer might well aspire to be. I
don't find his iconoclasm to be professionally threatening though you may
well.

Chas

in article 3F69A841.87F7C4D5@concentric.net, Ken Smith at
Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/18/03 9:36 PM:
Ernest Schaal wrote: in article 20030916180558.18258.00000916@mb-m13.aol.com, SolarChase at solarchase@aol.com wrote on 9/17/03 7:05 AM: So, its kinda the legal equivalent of getting some work done on your house, but the housing inspector is like co-owner of the contracting company. What, shoddy workmanship ??!! But it *passed* inspection !!! Solar I always am amused when people complain that judges can't judge the law, They can't, unless they can say that they are truly independent and disinterested. We have seen again and again that when a judge has a personal interest in a controversy -- and yes, even a vague political interest (Florida, New Jersey, SCOTUS, Colorado, and now, the Ninth Circuit) -- they will *invariably* vote in accordance with that interest. But none dare call it *corruption*, right, Schallow?

Just because they decide against you doesn't make it "corruption." Grow up
and realize that you blew it. You could possibly have been a lawyer today if
you hadn't refused the test, and based upon your posts in misc.legal, there
was sufficient doubt as to your mental status.

in article PF-dnZETbMcEe_SiXTWJhg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com
wrote on 9/19/03 2:08 AM:
Smith has demonstrated in these exchanges alone that he is mentally fit to practice law- it's self-evident. The standard of 'competence' is certainly met- so what is the possible standard to which he must rise to be 'fit' to practice law? No one knows; or if knows, says.

Funny, those exchanges alone show a paranoia and a rage that would make a
competent bar examiner need to request a mental exam.

Chas wrote

"Then they should be prepared to articulate it; and the standards by which it
was critiqued. His performance in this arena alone is demonstrative of his
competency and 'fitness'. While I find his views differing from mine- and
offensive in some lights- he seems like a sterling example of what a lawyer
might well aspire to be. I don't find his iconoclasm to be professionally
threatening though you may well."

I can agree there. I am not the biggest fan of Howard Stern's campy schlock
early in the morning, but he certainly has a right to be there. Its *one* thing
for us as individuals to critique another persons "style" and quite *another*
for the government to do it.

And lets not forget: A convicted felon got past the bar in Colorado. Thats
gotta make you wonder about "standards".... LOL

Solar

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:12:31 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to require a mental exam? . . . . . . .(Apparently not)Then they should be prepared to articulate it; and the standards by which itwas critiqued.

Perhaps. If the question is properly raised. But you can't shift the
burden of proof that easily. By the way, the term is "articulable
objective facts." And I have a suspicion that you would be sorely
disappointed in the "standard," which is probably no more than
"reasonable suspicion." Do you really doubt that the bar examiners
had objective articulable facts sufficient to support a reasonable
suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit to practice law and that a
mental status examination would be necessary to a determination of
that issue?
His performance in this arena alone is demonstrative of his competency and'fitness'.

Choke/snort!
While I find his views differing from mine- and offensive in some lights- heseems like a sterling example of what a lawyer might well aspire to be.

Choke/snort!
Idon't find his iconoclasm to be professionally threatening though you maywell.

Well, now, that's the problem, isn't it? It isn't what WE think, is
it? It's somebody else's decision. Oh, we badly want it not to be
somebody else's decision so we keep coming up with these cockamamie
theories that everybody else's decision has to be tested against some
objective standard (a practical, perhaps logical, impossibility) or
it's "unconstitutional."

- Jon Beaver

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:07:19 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
in article PF-dnZETbMcEe_SiXTWJhg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.comwrote on 9/19/03 2:08 AM: Smith has demonstrated in these exchanges alone that he is mentally fit to practice law- it's self-evident. The standard of 'competence' is certainly met- so what is the possible standard to which he must rise to be 'fit' to practice law? No one knows; or if knows, says.Funny, those exchanges alone show a paranoia and a rage that would make acompetent bar examiner need to request a mental exam.

In fact, it's "self evident."


- Jon Beaver

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to require a mental exam? . . . . . . .(Apparently not)Then they should be prepared to articulate it; and the standards by which
itwas critiqued. Perhaps. If the question is properly raised. But you can't shift the burden of proof that easily.

It would seem that a denial would require proof- as an acceptance wouldn't
be questioned.
It would seem particularly appropriate as people are assumed to be competent
without good proof to the contrary.
By the way, the term is "articulable objective facts."

Thanks- be nice to see some.
And I have a suspicion that you would be sorely disappointed in the "standard," which is probably no more than "reasonable suspicion."

What's the suspicion? and suspicion based on what facts? Caprice? Whimsey?
Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable facts sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit to practice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to a determination of that issue?

Yessir; I believe I do.
I don't think the Colorado system deserves the presumption of integrity any
longer. I feel that they have forfeited that presumption over years of
dishonesty, sham dealings and mendacity.
Well, now, that's the problem, isn't it? It isn't what WE think, is it? It's somebody else's decision.

And it looks like they may have abrogated that public trust we invest in
them- and it always behooves us to watch them closely- after all, they're
lawyers.
Oh, we badly want it not to be somebody else's decision so we keep coming up with these cockamamie theories that everybody else's decision has to be tested against some objective standard (a practical, perhaps logical, impossibility) or it's "unconstitutional."

Yeah; ya give'em a little freedom; a few Constitutional guarantees- whaddya
get? Ingratitude and impudence unless you give them more.
Just can't get good serfs anymore, hunh, Jon?

Chas

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:59:32 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote> Ever consider that the bar examiners really did have probable cause to> require a mental exam? . . . . . . .(Apparently not)Then they should be prepared to articulate it; and the standards by whichitwas critiqued. Perhaps. If the question is properly raised. But you can't shift the burden of proof that easily.It would seem that a denial would require proof- as an acceptance wouldn'tbe questioned.It would seem particularly appropriate as people are assumed to be competentwithout good proof to the contrary.

Are you asking me to explain burdens of proof to you?
By the way, the term is "articulable objective facts."Thanks- be nice to see some.

Sorry, but it's Ken's burden to prove there was none. Are you sure
you don't want me to explain burdens of proof to you?
And I have a suspicion that you would be sorely disappointed in the "standard," which is probably no more than "reasonable suspicion."What's the suspicion? and suspicion based on what facts? Caprice? Whimsey?

Keep reading. . . . Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable facts sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit to practice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to a determination of that issue?

There! Is that what you were looking for?
Yessir; I believe I do.

And how would you know that without the record?
I don't think the Colorado system deserves the presumption of integrity anylonger. I feel that they have forfeited that presumption over years ofdishonesty, sham dealings and mendacity.

Unfortunately for that argument, the presumption of lawfulness of
official acts isn't a matter of "deserves." We presume it for the
sake of law and order. It's Ken's burden to prove that they acted
unlawfully or improperly in his matter. Otherwise, what's the point
of any of it?
Well, now, that's the problem, isn't it? It isn't what WE think, is it? It's somebody else's decision.And it looks like they may have abrogated that public trust we invest inthem- and it always behooves us to watch them closely- after all, they'relawyers.

I can't help what it "looks like" to you.
Oh, we badly want it not to be somebody else's decision so we keep coming up with these cockamamie theories that everybody else's decision has to be tested against some objective standard (a practical, perhaps logical, impossibility) or it's "unconstitutional."Yeah; ya give'em a little freedom; a few Constitutional guarantees- whaddyaget? Ingratitude and impudence unless you give them more.Just can't get good serfs anymore, hunh, Jon?

So you feel like a "serf?" Tell it to the Chaplain.

- Jon Beaver

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Are you asking me to explain burdens of proof to you?

I'd *love* to have you explain burden of proof to me, Jon.
How very kind to offer.
Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable facts sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit to practice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to a determination of that issue?Yessir; I believe I do. And how would you know that without the record?

You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt.
Now you've switched it to 'know'; another example of intellectual
dishonesty.
I don't think the Colorado system deserves the presumption of integrity
anylonger. I feel that they have forfeited that presumption over years ofdishonesty, sham dealings and mendacity. Unfortunately for that argument, the presumption of lawfulness of official acts isn't a matter of "deserves."

Sure it is.
When the administrators of the legal system are well-known for corruption,
abuse of process, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, abuse of rights
under COA- they lose that presumption of integrity and honesty, and are
rightfully subject to questions.
We presume it for the sake of law and order. It's Ken's burden to prove that they acted unlawfully or improperly in his matter. Otherwise, what's the point of any of it?

The same 'point' as any other questioning of an authoritative disposition
without justification, and open to abuse for personal reasons.
I can't help what it "looks like" to you.

I know- and it's sad.
It looks like selective abuse of the process by people who are well enough
connected to get special treatment in the courts- that would be the Bar
Association.
So far, the only substantive response to Smith's assertions has boiled down
to 'you can't beat city hall'- and that's not an acceptable answer in the
United States.
So you feel like a "serf?" Tell it to the Chaplain.

Ahh; the old 'pound sand' justification.
Were you relieved of your oath to protect and defend, Jon?
We're of the same age and background, Jon; is this really what you defended
with your life?
Are you really ready to just go along to get along?
Semper Fidelis?

Chas

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:30:36 -0600, "Chas" <chas@chasclements.com>
wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote

I don't think the Colorado system deserves the presumption of integrityanylonger. I feel that they have forfeited that presumption over years ofdishonesty, sham dealings and mendacity.
Unfortunately for that argument, the presumption of lawfulness of official acts isn't a matter of "deserves."Sure it is.When the administrators of the legal system are well-known for corruption,abuse of process, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, abuse of rightsunder COA- they lose that presumption of integrity and honesty, and arerightfully subject to questions.

"Questions?" Of course. Throw the bastards out. But you don't get
to refuse to obey the law just because you are sure you COULD prove
the judges are on the take. You have to actually prove it to someone
else. YOU don't get to decide. The system where you "know" it and
they have to prove you're wrong isn't a good way to run a railroad.
We presume it for the sake of law and order. It's Ken's burden to prove that they acted unlawfully or improperly in his matter. Otherwise, what's the point of any of it?The same 'point' as any other questioning of an authoritative dispositionwithout justification, and open to abuse for personal reasons.

Except that in a just society, we can't run things on what you alone
think is true, even if it is true.
I can't help what it "looks like" to you.I know- and it's sad.It looks like selective abuse of the process by people who are well enoughconnected to get special treatment in the courts- that would be the BarAssociation.

I can't argue with that. It's gibberish.
So far, the only substantive response to Smith's assertions has boiled downto 'you can't beat city hall'- and that's not an acceptable answer in theUnited States.

I'm sorry you think that pointing out a total failure to state a cause
of action for any recognized or historically available legal relief is
not a "substantive" response to Smith's assertions.

Suppose you're a lawyer and a law student came into your office and
said "I saw my Con Law professor soliciting a prostitute, and I called
the cops. Then he gave me a bad grade." Has the client been wronged?
You don't know. But you do know that those facts aren't sufficient to
make a case of any kind, even if they are absolutely true.
So you feel like a "serf?" Tell it to the Chaplain.Ahh; the old 'pound sand' justification.

Ah, the old "my feelings are all that count" justification.
Were you relieved of your oath to protect and defend, Jon?We're of the same age and background, Jon; is this really what you defendedwith your life?Are you really ready to just go along to get along?Semper Fidelis?

Protect and defend what? Your "right" to be the only one with
"rights?"

- Jon Beaver

In article <fXidnWv-3MmGvPaiXTWJig@comcast.com>, "Chas"
<chas@chasclements.com> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Are you asking me to explain burdens of proof to you?I'd *love* to have you explain burden of proof to me, Jon.How very kind to offer.> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners> had objective articulable facts sufficient to support a reasonable> suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit to practice law and that a> mental status examination would be necessary to a determination of> that issue?Yessir; I believe I do. And how would you know that without the record?You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt.Now you've switched it to 'know'; another example of intellectualdishonesty.

No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many
of us, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on
which the decision was made.

Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:

">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable facts
sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit to
practice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to a
determination that issue?
>Yessir; I believe I do.
And how would you know that without the record?
You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';
another example of intellectual dishonesty.No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many of
us, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on which
the decision was made."

And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seen
anything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet that
would get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar
*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, that
was damn close to my original question)

I'm sure Larry the ADA would love nothing more than to wake up one day and have
a convicted felon as his new boss at the office... wouldnt you Lar ?? After
all, they *are* more "fit" than those whistleblowing webmasters, arent they ???


Furthermore, i cant believe Larson had lawyers working for him that were stupid
or cheap. If "mental stablilty" was such a common thread throught the whole
trial that it had to become blindingly obvious to the Examiners, why did it
take _years_ to get ordered. Someone needs to explain the time line to me (see
that "perfect poster child"/"complaint") again here.

i dont *know* more than any of you do, but i'd have to say there is a reason or
two for someone to "doubt"....

have a GREAT weekend !!!
Solar

In article <20030920025003.22893.00001064@mb-m23.aol.com>,
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable factssufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit topractice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to adetermination that issue?> >Yessir; I believe I do.> And how would you know that without the record?You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';another example of intellectual dishonesty.No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many ofus, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on whichthe decision was made."And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seenanything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet thatwould get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, thatwas damn close to my original question)

Yes, there is an automatic inquiry of mental fitness when you apply for a
law license. You actually oppose this?

And yes, it is harder to take someone's bar license away from them than it
is to grant one in the first place. This applies to any sort of license
or accreditation. See Roth v. Bd of Regents and Perry v. Sindermann.
I'm sure Larry the ADA would love nothing more than to wake up one day and havea convicted felon as his new boss at the office... wouldnt you Lar ?? Afterall, they *are* more "fit" than those whistleblowing webmasters, arent they ???

Depends on the kind of job. A convicted felon practicing criminal law,
I'd have a problem with. But a family lawyer or estate planner who has a
conviction for shoplifting a pair of jeans when he was in high school? I
think most of us can live with that.
Furthermore, i cant believe Larson had lawyers working for him that were stupidor cheap. If "mental stablilty" was such a common thread throught the wholetrial that it had to become blindingly obvious to the Examiners, why did ittake _years_ to get ordered. Someone needs to explain the time line to me (seethat "perfect poster child"/"complaint") again here.

Larsen's lawyers had nothing to do with Ken's application for bar
membership, other than to the extent they made Ken's claims look silly.

On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable factssufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit topractice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to adetermination that issue?> >Yessir; I believe I do.> And how would you know that without the record?You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';another example of intellectual dishonesty.No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many ofus, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on whichthe decision was made."And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seenanything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet thatwould get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, thatwas damn close to my original question)

Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!! What in hell is
the matter with your ability to think? They refused to admit Ken to
the bar. HE says it was because he refused to take a mental status
exam. HE says they only asked for the exam to "punish" him for
"exposing" a televangelist. We asked to see THEIR statement of why
they refused to admit him. He refuses. You say you "haven't seen
anything" that convinces you he should have been refused admission?
Well, no ****!!!! Ken's concealing it from us!

I'm sure Larry the ADA would love nothing more than to wake up one day and havea convicted felon as his new boss at the office... wouldnt you Lar ?? Afterall, they *are* more "fit" than those whistleblowing webmasters, arent they ???Furthermore, i cant believe Larson had lawyers working for him that were stupidor cheap. If "mental stablilty" was such a common thread throught the wholetrial that it had to become blindingly obvious to the Examiners, why did ittake _years_ to get ordered. Someone needs to explain the time line to me (seethat "perfect poster child"/"complaint") again here.

No, the bar examiners have to HAVE a reason. They don't have to SHOW
it to us.
i dont *know* more than any of you do, but i'd have to say there is a reason ortwo for someone to "doubt"....

You're not actually serious, are you? You are actually suggesting
that a body like the Colorado Supreme Court would deny an applicant
admission to the bar for NO reason? I'm not going to argue with a
silly position like that. No record? Nothing to talk about except
the purely hypothetical of whether Ken's legal arguments hold water
based on his allegations. They don't.

- Jon Beaver

in article nsunmvchlocgkrq9nq0g098jfconnr9bkl@4ax.com, Jon Beaver at
jbeaver@NO.com wrote on 9/20/03 4:18 PM:
On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote: And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seen anything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet that would get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar *Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, that was damn close to my original question) Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!! What in hell is the matter with your ability to think? They refused to admit Ken to the bar. HE says it was because he refused to take a mental status exam. HE says they only asked for the exam to "punish" him for "exposing" a televangelist. We asked to see THEIR statement of why they refused to admit him. He refuses. You say you "haven't seen anything" that convinces you he should have been refused admission? Well, no ****!!!! Ken's concealing it from us!

Actually, what Solar Chase does not understand, or conveniently forgets, is
that Ken Smith was refused admission was because he refused to submit to a
mental status exam that could be requested when there is doubt about that
mental status.

Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there is a
justifiable doubt in the minds of the examiners.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:54:41 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
in article nsunmvchlocgkrq9nq0g098jfconnr9bkl@4ax.com, Jon Beaver atjbeaver@NO.com wrote on 9/20/03 4:18 PM: On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote: And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seen anything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet that would get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar *Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, that was damn close to my original question) Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!! What in hell is the matter with your ability to think? They refused to admit Ken to the bar. HE says it was because he refused to take a mental status exam. HE says they only asked for the exam to "punish" him for "exposing" a televangelist. We asked to see THEIR statement of why they refused to admit him. He refuses. You say you "haven't seen anything" that convinces you he should have been refused admission? Well, no ****!!!! Ken's concealing it from us!Actually, what Solar Chase does not understand, or conveniently forgets, isthat Ken Smith was refused admission was because he refused to submit to amental status exam that could be requested when there is doubt about thatmental status.

Actually, we only have Ken's word for it that refusal to submit to the
mental status exam was even the main reason why they denied him. In
fact, without their side of the story, we don't know for sure if it
was even one of the reasons. All we know is that it would have been
reason enough.
Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there is ajustifiable doubt in the minds of the examiners.

All we have is Ken's side of the story and it's still not enough to
show that he was wronged, much less that he is entitled to a license
to practice law.

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:
Actually, we only have Ken's word for it that refusal to submit to themental status exam was even the main reason why they denied him. Infact, without their side of the story, we don't know for sure if itwas even one of the reasons. All we know is that it would have beenreason enough.

How reliable are these mental status exams and what do their results
mean? Would intellectually respected and well-known people such as
Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Richard Feynman, Abraham Lincoln, John
Nash, and Ayn Rand, have passed one with any assurance?
--
Rahul

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:52:59 +0000 (UTC),
c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:Actually, we only have Ken's word for it that refusal to submit to themental status exam was even the main reason why they denied him. Infact, without their side of the story, we don't know for sure if itwas even one of the reasons. All we know is that it would have beenreason enough.How reliable are these mental status exams and what do their resultsmean? Would intellectually respected and well-known people such asAlbert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Richard Feynman, Abraham Lincoln, JohnNash, and Ayn Rand, have passed one with any assurance?

That's a good question in the right context. What exactly would this
proposed "mental status exam" consist of? Whether the examination
COULD yield relevant evidence of fitness to practice law goes to the
issue of good cause for requiring it. But the question has to be
raised at the time, and we don't have any evidence that Ken raised it
at all. Instead, he apparently just rudely refused to submit to the
exam.

Don't forget that a refusal to TAKE the exam renders speculative the
argument that the RESULTS of the exam would not have been relevant or
probative.

- Jon Beaver

In article <20030920025003.22893.00001064@mb-m23.aol.com>,
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:
">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable factssufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit topractice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to adetermination that issue?
> >Yessir; I believe I do.
> And how would you know that without the record?
You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';another example of intellectual dishonesty.
No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many ofus, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on whichthe decision was made."
And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seenanything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred.

What does that have to do with anything? Ken wasn't disbarred.
I havent seen anything yet thatwould get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, thatwas damn close to my original question)

Yes. There's an automatic inquiry of mental fitness for every bar
applicant. Most pass it without any trouble. Only those who give reason
to believe they may not be mentally fit -- such as Ken -- have trouble.

Moreover, is it that hard for you to understand that the standards are
different for revoking a license and granting one? If you do a bad job
parallel parking, do you think they take your driver's license away from
you? Hint: no. But if you do a bad job parallel parking, you don't get a
license.

[...]
Furthermore, i cant believe Larson had lawyers working for him that were stupidor cheap. If "mental stablilty" was such a common thread throught the wholetrial that it had to become blindingly obvious to the Examiners, why did ittake _years_ to get ordered. Someone needs to explain the time line to me (seethat "perfect poster child"/"complaint") again here.

1) Nobody said anything about "mental stability." We're talking mental
_fitness_ (to be an attorney).
2) What on earth does the Larson suit have to do with it? Larson's
attorneys don't care whether Ken is mentally fit.

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

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:07:19 +0900, Ernest Schaal<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:in article PF-dnZETbMcEe_SiXTWJhg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.comwrote on 9/19/03 2:08 AM: Smith has demonstrated in these exchanges alone that he is mentally fit to practice law- it's self-evident. The standard of 'competence' is certainly met- so what is the possible standard to which he must rise to be 'fit' to practice law? No one knows; or if knows, says.Funny, those exchanges alone show a paranoia and a rage that would make acompetent bar examiner need to request a mental exam.In fact, it's "self evident."- Jon Beaver

"as plain as the day" (an ancient roman standard).

-Merlin

Chas wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Are you asking me to explain burdens of proof to you? I'd *love* to have you explain burden of proof to me, Jon. How very kind to offer.> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners> had objective articulable facts sufficient to support a reasonable> suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit to practice law and that a> mental status examination would be necessary to a determination of> that issue?Yessir; I believe I do. And how would you know that without the record? You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know'; another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Remember, JonBoy *is* a lawyer. I would be an island of honor,
principle, and integrity in his sewer, and he can't abide that. :)

Whistleblowers need not apply to Jon's bar....
I don't think the Colorado system deserves the presumption of integrity anylonger. I feel that they have forfeited that presumption over years of
dishonesty, sham dealings and mendacity. Unfortunately for that argument, the presumption of lawfulness of official acts isn't a matter of "deserves." Sure it is. When the administrators of the legal system are well-known for corruption, abuse of process, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, abuse of rights under COA- they lose that presumption of integrity and honesty, and are rightfully subject to questions. We presume it for the sake of law and order. It's Ken's burden to prove that they acted unlawfully or improperly in his matter. Otherwise, what's the point of any of it? The same 'point' as any other questioning of an authoritative disposition without justification, and open to abuse for personal reasons.

That's the point -- the lack of justification taints the process. If
Colorado had clear standards and a transparent process, the public (and
the disgruntled applicant, in particular) could be reasonably assured he
received fair treatment. When decisions are made summarily, and without
explanation, the inference of corruption is overwhelming. After all, if
a decision is logical, well-reasoned, and consonant with the facts, it's
usually obvious from the judge's detailed opinion.

The winner doesn't have to know why he won, but the loser has to know
why he lost. And more to the point, the future litigant has to be able
to determine beforehand whether he would likely win or lose. An ad hoc
process devoid of standards, written precedent, or meaningful appellate
review makes that impossible. Larry Smith tried to explain that to our
Beavis and Buttheaad, but trying to reason with those two is like trying
to teach a pig to sing.

With respect to Ernest, he reminds me of the old saw: "You can always
tell the Dutch, but you can't tell the Dutch much." :)
I can't help what it "looks like" to you. I know- and it's sad. It looks like selective abuse of the process by people who are well enough connected to get special treatment in the courts- that would be the Bar Association. So far, the only substantive response to Smith's assertions has boiled down to 'you can't beat city hall'- and that's not an acceptable answer in the United States.

Remember, Jon Beaver wasn't just a Marine, he was a Marine officer --
in the sterling tradition of honor displayed by Ol'Lie "Documents aren't
the stuff of history; they ARE history!" North. For men like Ol'Lie and
JonBoy, corruption is a way of life....
So you feel like a "serf?" Tell it to the Chaplain. Ahh; the old 'pound sand' justification. Were you relieved of your oath to protect and defend, Jon?

Yep. When you sell your soul like poor JonBoy has, you will find that
whoever bought it paid far too high a price.
We're of the same age and background, Jon; is this really what you defended with your life?

Yep. The only difference is that if the other side prevailed, JonBoy
wouldn't get to be their lap-dog.
Are you really ready to just go along to get along? Semper Fidelis?

You're a former Marine, Chas? If you are, Jon has to offend you far
more than I could ever begin to. Honor. Duty. God. Country. Those are
supposed to have *meaning* for a Marine.

What did they do to Jon that would make him stray so far from that
storied tradition?

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:52:59 +0000 (UTC), c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:Actually, we only have Ken's word for it that refusal to submit to themental status exam was even the main reason why they denied him. Infact, without their side of the story, we don't know for sure if itwas even one of the reasons. All we know is that it would have beenreason enough.How reliable are these mental status exams and what do their resultsmean? Would intellectually respected and well-known people such asAlbert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Richard Feynman, Abraham Lincoln, JohnNash, and Ayn Rand, have passed one with any assurance? That's a good question in the right context. What exactly would this proposed "mental status exam" consist of? Whether the examination COULD yield relevant evidence of fitness to practice law goes to the issue of good cause for requiring it. But the question has to be raised at the time,

And it was. But as it was raised in a kangaroo court -- such as
the one declared unconstitutional in Cleavinger -- it doesn't matter
one whit. You can't have a judge be deciding between the request
of a colleague who is virtually certain to be ruling on your requests
in the future and a the competing rights of a complete stranger and
expect that decision to be any more fair and balanced than the crap
coming out of Faux News.
and we don't have any evidence that Ken raised it at all. Instead, he apparently just rudely refused to submit to the exam. Don't forget that a refusal to TAKE the exam renders speculative the argument that the RESULTS of the exam would not have been relevant or probative.

You seem to conveniently forget that the moment that an unlawful
search commences, it is an irreparable violation of the victim's right
to privacy. Deal with that issue first, and *then* we can get to the
merits.

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article nsunmvchlocgkrq9nq0g098jfconnr9bkl@4ax.com, Jon Beaver at jbeaver@NO.com wrote on 9/20/03 4:18 PM: On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote: And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seen anything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet that would get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar *Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, that was damn close to my original question) Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!! What in hell is the matter with your ability to think? They refused to admit Ken to the bar. HE says it was because he refused to take a mental status exam. HE says they only asked for the exam to "punish" him for "exposing" a televangelist. We asked to see THEIR statement of why they refused to admit him. He refuses. You say you "haven't seen anything" that convinces you he should have been refused admission? Well, no ****!!!! Ken's concealing it from us! Actually, what Solar Chase does not understand, or conveniently forgets, is that Ken Smith was refused admission was because he refused to submit to a mental status exam that could be requested when there is doubt about that mental status.

Actually, what Schallow does not understand, or conveniently forgets, is
that said mental status examination can only be ordered consonant with the
limitations imposed by the federal and Colorado constitutions. An "order"
which violates either one -- or, applicable federal law -- cannot in law be
enforced. It is in substance no different from a cop ordering a woman to
take her close off and spread her legs so he can rape her -- the cop can't
enforce that order, and he should know it.
Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there is a justifiable doubt in the minds of the examiners.

Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there is
a strong likelihood that Ernest is a child-molester.

Larry wrote:
In article <20030920025003.22893.00001064@mb-m23.aol.com>, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable factssufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit topractice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to adetermination that issue?>> >Yessir; I believe I do.>> And how would you know that without the record?>You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';another example of intellectual dishonesty.No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many ofus, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on whichthe decision was made."And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seenanything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet thatwould get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, thatwas damn close to my original question) Yes, there is an automatic inquiry of mental fitness when you apply for a law license. You actually oppose this?

Not under Colorado law. The only time it even becomes an issue is
when the Bar can show "good cause" for such an inquiry. But listening
to you, you seem to believe that "cause we vants it" is "good cause."
And yes, it is harder to take someone's bar license away from them than it is to grant one in the first place. This applies to any sort of license or accreditation. See Roth v. Bd of Regents and Perry v. Sindermann.

That's not what the cases say, and you've actually admitted to reading
them. Both are tenure cases, and involve implied terms of a teacher's
contract.
I'm sure Larry the ADA would love nothing more than to wake up one day and havea convicted felon as his new boss at the office... wouldnt you Lar ?? Afterall, they *are* more "fit" than those whistleblowing webmasters, arent they ??? Depends on the kind of job. A convicted felon practicing criminal law, I'd have a problem with.

That's what we have here in Colorado -- but of course, that convicted
felon is an ADA like you, and she is the daughter of a prominent Demo-
cratic Party hack. So, why don't you have a problem with that, Lar???

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article PF-dnZETbMcEe_SiXTWJhg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com wrote on 9/19/03 2:08 AM: Smith has demonstrated in these exchanges alone that he is mentally fit to practice law- it's self-evident. The standard of 'competence' is certainly met- so what is the possible standard to which he must rise to be 'fit' to practice law? No one knows; or if knows, says. Funny, those exchanges alone show a paranoia and a rage that would make a competent bar examiner need to request a mental exam.

You have to wonder whether Schaallow is JonBoy's "expert." Raather
predictably, he has "found" precisely those "facts" he needs to reach
his preordained conclusion....

SolarChase wrote:
Chas wrote "Then they should be prepared to articulate it; and the standards by which it was critiqued. His performance in this arena alone is demonstrative of his competency and 'fitness'. While I find his views differing from mine- and offensive in some lights- he seems like a sterling example of what a lawyer might well aspire to be. I don't find his iconoclasm to be professionally threatening though you may well." I can agree there. I am not the biggest fan of Howard Stern's campy schlock early in the morning, but he certainly has a right to be there. Its *one* thing for us as individuals to critique another persons "style" and quite *another* for the government to do it. And lets not forget: A convicted felon got past the bar in Colorado. Thats gotta make you wonder about "standards".... LOL

No, a convicted felon and cocaine dealer who is the daughter of a well
known Democratic Party hack received a license; the Republican candidate
for our state house was denied a license two days after his election bid
fell short.

"Cocaine Mary" Mullarkey and her colleagues were all Democratic Party
appointees -- the product of Roy the Roamer.

You do the math.

Jon Beaver wrote:
On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable factssufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit topractice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to adetermination that issue?>> >Yessir; I believe I do.>> And how would you know that without the record?>You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';another example of intellectual dishonesty.No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many ofus, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on whichthe decision was made."And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seenanything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet thatwould get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, thatwas damn close to my original question) Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!!

Get a clue, JonBoy! This isn't about burdens of proof; it's about
standards. I've told you what the Bar claimed in support for its IME
order -- even in their own words! -- and I said before, there's no
evidentiary grounding for their request. Just a bunch of conclusory
allegations. And the same goes for the recommendation to the Court.

I think Solar, Chas, and others are starting to see what you don't
want them to see -- that the IME demand was frivolous, and based on
nothing more than the Examiners' disdatin for my protected speech and
petitioning activity. Even if I produced the document you demand to
see, I am certain that *their* words will be in complete accord with
what I've told you in my precis -- but I know that, as you admitted in
connection with the O.J. trial, no amount of fact will satisfy you.

It certainly didn't make a difference with respect to the IME order.
You detest me personally, because you don't like whistleblowers,
and have openly admitted it. And in your eyes, I am guilty even if
innocent -- because that's what you *need* the answer to be.

The technical term is "cognitive dissonance."

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:14:09 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:52:59 +0000 (UTC), c.c.eiftj@WhatXdidXt.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> writes:>Actually, we only have Ken's word for it that refusal to submit to the>mental status exam was even the main reason why they denied him. In>fact, without their side of the story, we don't know for sure if it>was even one of the reasons. All we know is that it would have been>reason enough.How reliable are these mental status exams and what do their resultsmean? Would intellectually respected and well-known people such asAlbert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Richard Feynman, Abraham Lincoln, JohnNash, and Ayn Rand, have passed one with any assurance? That's a good question in the right context. What exactly would this proposed "mental status exam" consist of? Whether the examination COULD yield relevant evidence of fitness to practice law goes to the issue of good cause for requiring it. But the question has to be raised at the time, And it was. But as it was raised in a kangaroo court -- such asthe one declared unconstitutional in Cleavinger -- it doesn't matterone whit. You can't have a judge be deciding between the requestof a colleague who is virtually certain to be ruling on your requestsin the future and a the competing rights of a complete stranger andexpect that decision to be any more fair and balanced than the crapcoming out of Faux News.

You're right. It doesn't matter one whit. The record would have to
affirmatively show (1) a complete lack of any reasonable basis for
requiring a mental status exam in your case, (2) a timely objection to
the mental status exam on THAT specific ground, unclouded and
unconfused with the issue of the impartiality of the lower tribunal,
and (3) a clear objection and request for appropriate relief in the
Supreme Court. If you didn't do that, you lose. If you did do that,
you lost.
and we don't have any evidence that Ken raised it at all. Instead, he apparently just rudely refused to submit to the exam. Don't forget that a refusal to TAKE the exam renders speculative the argument that the RESULTS of the exam would not have been relevant or probative. You seem to conveniently forget that the moment that an unlawfulsearch commences, it is an irreparable violation of the victim's rightto privacy. Deal with that issue first, and *then* we can get to themerits.

Assuming that what you just said is anything close to stating any
known proposition of law, when did this "unlawful search" "commence?"


- Jon Beaver

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:19:10 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote: in article nsunmvchlocgkrq9nq0g098jfconnr9bkl@4ax.com, Jon Beaver at jbeaver@NO.com wrote on 9/20/03 4:18 PM: On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:> And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent> seen anything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything> yet that would get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from> a Bar *Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!!> (funny, that was damn close to my original question) Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!! What in hell is the matter with your ability to think? They refused to admit Ken to the bar. HE says it was because he refused to take a mental status exam. HE says they only asked for the exam to "punish" him for "exposing" a televangelist. We asked to see THEIR statement of why they refused to admit him. He refuses. You say you "haven't seen anything" that convinces you he should have been refused admission? Well, no ****!!!! Ken's concealing it from us! Actually, what Solar Chase does not understand, or conveniently forgets, is that Ken Smith was refused admission was because he refused to submit to a mental status exam that could be requested when there is doubt about that mental status. Actually, what Schallow does not understand, or conveniently forgets, isthat said mental status examination can only be ordered consonant with thelimitations imposed by the federal and Colorado constitutions.

Can't argue with that. Now, back to YOUR case. . .
An "order"which violates either one -- or, applicable federal law -- cannot in law beenforced.

Can't be "enforced," huh? You talk funny. Let me see, if I "order"
you to give me $50 or I won't loan you my lawn mower, and you refuse,
am I "enforcing" my "order" by not loaning you my lawn mower?
It is in substance no different from a cop ordering a woman totake her close off and spread her legs so he can rape her -- the cop can'tenforce that order, and he should know it.

It's in substance not at all the same. How silly!
Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there is a justifiable doubt in the minds of the examiners. Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there isa strong likelihood that Ernest is a child-molester.

Point well taken! (His)


- Jon Beaver

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:23:42 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Larry wrote:
Yes, there is an automatic inquiry of mental fitness when you apply for a law license. You actually oppose this? Not under Colorado law.

Yes, under Colorado law.
The only time it even becomes an issue is

.. . .when you make an application to practice law.



- Jon Beaver

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:25:46 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Ernest Schaal wrote: in article PF-dnZETbMcEe_SiXTWJhg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com wrote on 9/19/03 2:08 AM: Smith has demonstrated in these exchanges alone that he is mentally fit to practice law- it's self-evident. The standard of 'competence' is certainly met- so what is the possible standard to which he must rise to be 'fit' to practice law? No one knows; or if knows, says. Funny, those exchanges alone show a paranoia and a rage that would make a competent bar examiner need to request a mental exam. You have to wonder whether Schaallow is JonBoy's "expert." Raatherpredictably, he has "found" precisely those "facts" he needs to reachhis preordained conclusion....

Several people have opined that you appear mentally ill. Your
explanation for this is -- conspiracy?

- Jon Beaver

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:39:05 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable factssufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit topractice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to adetermination that issue?>>> >Yessir; I believe I do.>>> And how would you know that without the record?>>You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';another example of intellectual dishonesty.>>No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many ofus, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on whichthe decision was made."And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seenanything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything yet thatwould get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, thatwas damn close to my original question) Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!! Get a clue, JonBoy! This isn't about burdens of proof; it's aboutstandards.

I know that's what you think. But that's where you've gone wrong.
You don't have standing to complain about the "standards."
I've told you what the Bar claimed in support for its IMEorder -- even in their own words! -- and I said before, there's noevidentiary grounding for their request. Just a bunch of conclusoryallegations. And the same goes for the recommendation to the Court.

I think Solar, Chas, and others are starting to see what you don'twant them to see -- that the IME demand was frivolous, and based onnothing more than the Examiners' disdatin for my protected speech andpetitioning activity.

Anybody is free to believe you. But if you want me to believe you,
you're going to have to produce the record. Even then, it's a long
shot that it will make any legal difference.
Even if I produced the document you demand tosee, I am certain that *their* words will be in complete accord withwhat I've told you in my precis -- but I know that, as you admitted inconnection with the O.J. trial, no amount of fact will satisfy you.

Convenient.
It certainly didn't make a difference with respect to the IME order.You detest me personally, because you don't like whistleblowers,and have openly admitted it. And in your eyes, I am guilty even ifinnocent -- because that's what you *need* the answer to be. The technical term is "cognitive dissonance."

No, it's "paranoia."


- Jon Beaver

in article 3F6FCB2B.6830586F@concentric.net, Ken Smith at
Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/23/03 1:19 PM:
Ernest Schaal wrote: in article nsunmvchlocgkrq9nq0g098jfconnr9bkl@4ax.com, Jon Beaver at jbeaver@NO.com wrote on 9/20/03 4:18 PM: On 20 Sep 2003 06:50:03 GMT, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:> And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent> seen anything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. I havent seen anything> yet that would get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming> from a Bar *Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!!> (funny, that was damn close to my original question) Do I have to explain burdens of proof to YOU too?!!! What in hell is the matter with your ability to think? They refused to admit Ken to the bar. HE says it was because he refused to take a mental status exam. HE says they only asked for the exam to "punish" him for "exposing" a televangelist. We asked to see THEIR statement of why they refused to admit him. He refuses. You say you "haven't seen anything" that convinces you he should have been refused admission? Well, no ****!!!! Ken's concealing it from us! Actually, what Solar Chase does not understand, or conveniently forgets, is that Ken Smith was refused admission was because he refused to submit to a mental status exam that could be requested when there is doubt about that mental status. Actually, what Schallow does not understand, or conveniently forgets, is that said mental status examination can only be ordered consonant with the limitations imposed by the federal and Colorado constitutions. An "order" which violates either one -- or, applicable federal law -- cannot in law be enforced. It is in substance no different from a cop ordering a woman to take her close off and spread her legs so he can rape her -- the cop can't enforce that order, and he should know it.

But Ken, you haven't shown that the order violates anything.

Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there is a justifiable doubt in the minds of the examiners. Personally, based upon his comments in this thread alone, I think there is a strong likelihood that Ernest is a child-molester.

Ken, the fact that you would make such a conclusion about me simply because
I state what the law is, rather than what you would like to pretend it is,
proves my point about you.

in article 3F6FCCB9.908CD10E@concentric.net, Ken Smith at
Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/23/03 1:25 PM:
Ernest Schaal wrote: in article PF-dnZETbMcEe_SiXTWJhg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.com wrote on 9/19/03 2:08 AM: Smith has demonstrated in these exchanges alone that he is mentally fit to practice law- it's self-evident. The standard of 'competence' is certainly met- so what is the possible standard to which he must rise to be 'fit' to practice law? No one knows; or if knows, says. Funny, those exchanges alone show a paranoia and a rage that would make a competent bar examiner need to request a mental exam. You have to wonder whether Schaallow is JonBoy's "expert." Raather predictably, he has "found" precisely those "facts" he needs to reach his preordained conclusion....

Further proof of my point that the request for a mental exam was proper is
the tirade of yours above. I realize that you are bitter, because you blame
the system for you not being a lawyer, but your bitterness has really
affected your judgment. If you have any hope of ever practicing law
anywhere, your current course of action is making that less and less likely.

David Marc Nieporent wrote:
In article <20030920025003.22893.00001064@mb-m23.aol.com>, solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:Jon, Chas then Larry had a line that went like this:">> Do you really doubt that the bar examiners had objective articulable factssufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that Ken was mentally unfit topractice law and that a mental status examination would be necessary to adetermination that issue?>> >Yessir; I believe I do.>> And how would you know that without the record?>You said 'doubt'; sure I have doubt. Now you've switched it to 'know';>another example of intellectual dishonesty.No, he asked how you "know" about your doubts.... and I submit, as do many ofus, that the doubts are based on Ken's failure to provide the record on whichthe decision was made."And i guess that i will chime in here with my reason to "doubt". I havent seenanything yet that would get a lawyer disbarred. What does that have to do with anything? Ken wasn't disbarred.

Everything. If the actual purpose of a mental fitness examination is
to keep unfit prople from practicing, the same standards should apply to
everyone. However, if the real purpose is to erect an arbitrary barrier
to keep, niggers, broads, and kikes from practicing -- historically, the
Bar has done precisely that -- then two standards are not only expected
but desirable. Jim Crow.

Let's be honest about what's going on here. It's about keeping those
whose views are undesirable from gaining membership in 'the Club'.
I havent seen anything yet thatwould get a normal, (non lawyer) person in trouble. Yet coming from a Bar*Applicant*... its an automatic inquiry of *mental* fitness ??!! (funny, thatwas damn close to my original question) Yes. There's an automatic inquiry of mental fitness for every bar applicant.

Not in Colorado.
Most pass it without any trouble. Only those who give reason to believe they may not be mentally fit

And what is "reason to believe that an applicant may not be mentally
fit?" Unless we know what "mental fitness to be a lawyer is," we can't
even go there in the first place. And "it is well established that an act
in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is
actionable . . . even if the act, when taken for a different reason,
would have been proper." Smith v. Maschner. What I am saying is
that there is substantial evidence that the IME was ordered in retali-
ation for my lawful exercise of my First Amendment rights. So, why
*can't* I have that claim adjudicated?
-- such as Ken -- have trouble.

Again, please at least try to define terms before you level your
scurrilous accusations....
Moreover, is it that hard for you to understand that the standards are different for revoking a license and granting one?

In this case, yes. If the purpose is to prove technical competence,
then the standards should be different. But if the purpose is to pro-
tect the public, and one's mental and physical condition is what is at
issue, there's no logical distinction between applicants and seasoned
practitioners. Both seasoned drivers and neophytes can score a .20
on a breathalyzer....
If you do a bad job parallel parking, do you think they take your driver's license away from you? Hint: no. But if you do a bad job parallel parking, you don't get a license. [...]Furthermore, i cant believe Larson had lawyers working for him that were stupidor cheap. If "mental stablilty" was such a common thread throught the wholetrial that it had to become blindingly obvious to the Examiners, why did ittake _years_ to get ordered. Someone needs to explain the time line to me (seethat "perfect poster child"/"complaint") again here. 1) Nobody said anything about "mental stability." We're talking mental _fitness_ (to be an attorney).

Fine. Define it to the point where it is distinguishable from "queequex,"
and just maybe, we'll be able to have a rational discussion about it.

Ernest Schaal wrote:
in article 3F6FCCB9.908CD10E@concentric.net, Ken Smith at Ranger57@concentric.net wrote on 9/23/03 1:25 PM: Ernest Schaal wrote: in article PF-dnZETbMcEe_SiXTWJhg@comcast.com, Chas at chas@chasclements.c