All:

To be fair to the Beaver Otherwise Known as Merlin, I decided to
do a little research on him. The good news is that he doesn't appear
to be in serious trouble with the California bar that we know of, but
the bad news is that he's NOT exactly a junior partner at Fulbright &
Jaworski, either.

In fact, Merlin's "law office" is the local Mail Boxes Etc!!!

The Placer County Bar lists Robert Beaver's business address as
2974 Delta Fair Blvd., #281, Antioch, CA 94509, and his business
phone/fax as 925-755-7818. But that address happens to be the
unique address of the local Mail Boxes Etc. (now The UPS Store).
LOL! Send your cards, letters, and subpoenas to the local MBE. ;)

Unlike brother Jon -- who lists five alleged areas of competence,
and civil rights/First Amendment law is *not* one of them -- "Bob"
(which is what Merlin apparently goes by) doesn't list a single one!
(Virtually all the other lawyers list at least one area of competence,
based on my quick perusal of the list.)

[I'm particularly curious as to what you had to say to the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors in September of 2002, Bob.
Does your domestic partner/male roommate work for the County,
and did you complain about not getting benefits? (The minutes do
not indicate that you were appearing in a representative capacity,
which you would have had to disclose under ethics rules.) Or are
you a psychotic religious nutter?
If you're gay, that's okay with me -- though you should be fore-
warned that Teddi will either preach to you or ask you for a date.
But if you're a religious nutter, it explains why you and brother Jon
have gone so ballistic on me in such a highly personal and patently
offensive way.]

A top-drawer lawyer, "Merlin" is not. I can understand why he's
a bit reluctant to talk about his credentials and career.... ROTFL!

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:

Ken, you and your claims were given full and serious regard by several
lawyers in misc.legal, and by other knowledgable participants. For
four months you have posted abusive and non-responsive replys to
requests that you cease ranting and present your evidence so the merit
of your claims could be examined and discussed. You have consistenly
refused to do so. Instead of addressing the merits of comments you
have engaged in abuse, slander, threats, and net games each time
your arguments were challenged. In your eyes everyone disagreeing
with you became your mortal enemy.

What we do know is that the Bar Panel reviewing your application
found that you had previously abused the legal system and that your
lack of judgment in the course of litigation had resulted in a grave
abuse of the legal system. These are serious matters, grounds for
attorney discipline or disbarment. Did you imagine such rules did
not apply to you?

So in case you were wondering why they ask those questions,
its because they are looking for whackos who abuse the legal
system, and voila, there you stood... the new poster child.
Given your conduct on the net in the last few months, no one
has the slightest doubt that the Colorado Supreme Court acted
properly in denying you a license to practice law.

The panel found that probable cause for denial of your application was
established by evidence which tended to show that you were not
mentally stable or morally or ethically fit to practice law. Pursuant
to rules they ordered you to a submit to a mental status examination
conducted by a psychiatrist, which you refused. After reviewing the
record the CO Supreme Court denied your application. You did not
appeal their decision.

You then filed litigation in Federal court claiming you were
denied due process and that the Co bar application process does not
pass constitutional muster (your claim was dismissed for failure to
demonstrate federal jurisdiction, affirmed by the 10th Circuit, which
you have not appealed). You indicated you have filed additional claims
in the state courts, which will predicably fare no better.

Thus ended the matter of your application to
practice law in Colorado. The rules indicate that after five years
you may reapply. but in view of recent events that would appear
to be a pointless exercise.

You care nothing for those who stand at the crowded steps of the
courthouse, noses pressed against the glass looking for their chance
for a few crumbs of justice, yet all waiting behind you and your
delusions of grandeur.

As the lawyers here have explained, you have done nothing
to support claims that the Co law is facially invalid or that you were
denied any process "due" you. As far as anyone in misc.legal can
tell you were properly denied a license to practice law in Co because
when it came time to demonstrate the good moral character and
fitness required to be a Co lawyer, it was YOU who couldn't pass
muster.

You still don't pass muster. Get some help.

-Merlin

"Ken Smith"

That's a most chicken**** post.

<tpg trimmed>

>Merlin (Bob The Beaver) wrote

"Given your conduct on the net in the last few months, no one has the slightest
doubt that the Colorado Supreme Court acted properly in denying you a license
to practice law."

Ohhh, i dunno, i still have a slight doubt or two. Given Larry's love of dual
standards, Jon's inability to answer simple questions and your evasion of "are
you a lawyer" letting mean ol' Ken into the law club wont do anymore harm to
the legal profession. In fact, as an obnoxious whistleblower, he MIGHT actually
help it.

I think a much more convincing argument can be made that certain rap stars
wouldnt be "mentally fit" to be lawyers, but since there is no "standard" by
which to work with, they are no more on "notice" as to what will get them
booted out at the end of the law school road than anyone else is. Thats the
bigger problem at the end of the day.

After all, if a lawyer, law student and average joe all did the exact same
thing in the exact same way, they all should be treated equally. We are a
government of laws, not men, right ? No man shall be above the law.

(Just checkin)

But as for the post that spawned your little missive: ROTFLM*F*AO !!!!! As
usual, Ken's writing style flirts with being over the top, but revealing any
lawyer having a Mailbox Etc as the "office" address is a damned priceless
punchline... and not a word from you disputing it. I will never, never, ever
hear the song "Please, Mr Postman" the same way again. Thanks.

("Hey, what can Brown do for you ???")

Look at the bright side, this is one less question you guys have to worry about
answering.....

------
have a GROOOVY day !!!!
Solar

Yardpilot wrote:
"Ken Smith" That's a most chicken**** post.

Perhaps. But go back and re-read the past couple dozen posts
"Merlin" has directed at me, and tell me it wasn't called for.

As I see it, 'Pilot, as long as Bobby "Merlin" Beaver insists upon
engaging in relentless, malicious personal attacks at the exclusion
of all else, the only viable solution is to play the game by his rules
for a few moments. If he wants to hold me up to ridicule unfairly
for rhetorical advantage, then he had best learn that he who lives
in a glass house should not throw stones.

I'd rather deal with the actual issues, and preferably, without all
the personal attacks and sniping. But that just isn't possible here.
The endless stream of ad hominem attacks in support of brother
Jon has been "Merlin's" M.O. long before I was dragged into this
NG -- for nearly eight years, in fact. If I can finally disabuse him
of the notion that his conduct is permissible, everyone will benefit.
And if not, well, his situation *is* pretty bizarre....

SolarChase wrote:
Merlin (Bob The Beaver) wrote

[snipped]
But as for the post that spawned your little missive: ROTFLM*F*AO !!!!! As usual, Ken's writing style flirts with being over the top, but revealing any lawyer having a Mailbox Etc as the "office" address is a damned priceless punchline... and not a word from you disputing it. I will never, never, ever hear the song "Please, Mr Postman" the same way again. Thanks. ("Hey, what can Brown do for you ???")

More like, "Hey, what can BROWN-NOSING do for you???"

Ken Smith wrote:
Merlin wrote:
[same old incontinent bull****]

No it wasn't. It was a spot-on analysis of what's been going on wrt Ken
Smith.
It seems I've struck paydirt. [...]

No you haven't. All you've done is prove that you are one seriously sick
m***erf***er. Get some help. For real.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote: You made this debate personal -- and now, you're paying theprice for it. You're a laughing-stock, and you've earned it, Mr.Mail Boxes Etcetera Lawyer.

So now you're saying that Merlin IS a lawyer? Interesting.

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: You made this debate personal -- and now, you're paying theprice for it. You're a laughing-stock, and you've earned it, Mr.Mail Boxes Etcetera Lawyer. So now you're saying that Merlin IS a lawyer?

Barely. ROTFLMFAO! :)

Unlike you, I actually do my homework.

Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Yardpilot wrote: "Ken Smith" That's a most chicken**** post. Perhaps. But go back and re-read the past couple dozen posts"Merlin" has directed at me, and tell me it wasn't called for. As I see it, 'Pilot, as long as Bobby "Merlin" Beaver insists uponengaging in relentless, malicious personal attacks at the exclusionof all else, the only viable solution is to play the game by his rulesfor a few moments. If he wants to hold me up to ridicule unfairlyfor rhetorical advantage, then he had best learn that he who livesin a glass house should not throw stones. I'd rather deal with the actual issues, and preferably, without allthe personal attacks and sniping. But that just isn't possible here.The endless stream of ad hominem attacks in support of brotherJon has been "Merlin's" M.O. long before I was dragged into thisNG -- for nearly eight years, in fact. If I can finally disabuse himof the notion that his conduct is permissible, everyone will benefit.

Yes, you've shown all of us what you are like. Your post is
actionable. But that hardly makes it to your radar anymore.
You are ill. When did you last practice as a CPA? 1994?
You seek coerce your will by threatening people's families.
Do you imagine no consequence to that?

You complained about your treatment by the Colorado Bar and
Supreme Court, claiming corruption and other things, and
knowledgable people in misc.legal responded by trying to
understand your complaint and explain applicable law.
Yet you became abusive, and it has led to this, part of a
pattern in your life. How many times will you replay it?

But contrary to your claims you have no first amendment
right to "out" people, as you call it, and you have no first
amendment right to abuse the legal system, and you have
no first amendment right to stalk people or threaten judges.

Where you have expressed contempt for courts and judges
and lawyers, and where you have claimed the "right" to act
deliberately, even violently, against the law the lawyers here
have tried to explain to you that there is no "right" to act in
disobediance of law, only a "power" to be lawless, something
that exists not because it is right, but because it is an evil
necessary to the existence of other rights... our freedom,
our civil liberties. Criminals and sociopaths may seek to
expolit the power, but those actions are accountabile
the soverign, power.

The uneducated feel powerless in a state where law rules,
and sometimes seek to empower themselves with simplistic
notions and the machines and theories of violence.
It is an illusion for children, for in the end the most vicious
preditor is the soverign state, and the thing that keeps its
violent and repressive tendencies in bare check is, where it
may be found, law. A lawyer understands this 'truth'. This
understanding is what makes lawyers powerful.

Yet of any of this you have not the faintest clue, Ken.
I surmise that something happened to you in
second year, I can see the gaps and flaws in your understanding
of law. The lawyers here see it also, make no mistake, and if they
were truly your adversary they would make of you a snack,
without salt. Be glad you are not a lawyer entrusted with
the lives of others, for you would surely destroy others as
you have done to yourself.

-Merlin

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>wrote: You made this debate personal -- and now, you're paying theprice for it. You're a laughing-stock, and you've earned it, Mr.Mail Boxes Etcetera Lawyer.So now you're saying that Merlin IS a lawyer? Interesting.- Jon Beaver

Yeah, I noticed. Malice on Malice.

"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3F9DEE71.B881D700@concentric.net... All: To be fair to the Beaver Otherwise Known as Merlin, I decided to do a little research on him. The good news is that he doesn't
appear to be in serious trouble with the California bar that we know of,
but the bad news is that he's NOT exactly a junior partner at Fulbright
& Jaworski, either. In fact, Merlin's "law office" is the local Mail Boxes Etc!!!

Pardon my ignorance...but what's wrong with having your mail directed
to a M.B.Etc? I think more small firms and solo practitioners than you
realize do this to manage junk mail, job applications, etc.. Of course
you would use your office address as an address for service.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:26:17 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: You made this debate personal -- and now, you're paying theprice for it. You're a laughing-stock, and you've earned it, Mr.Mail Boxes Etcetera Lawyer. So now you're saying that Merlin IS a lawyer? Barely. ROTFLMFAO! :) Unlike you, I actually do my homework.

Like the "homework" you did that lost you your license to practice
law? You're a slow learner, Ken.


- Jon Beaver

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:59:38 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>wrote: You made this debate personal -- and now, you're paying theprice for it. You're a laughing-stock, and you've earned it, Mr.Mail Boxes Etcetera Lawyer.So now you're saying that Merlin IS a lawyer? Interesting.- Jon Beaver Yeah, I noticed. Malice on Malice.

If he wasn't crazy . . .

- Jon Beaver

In article <dd5tpv8rv3ecrb6lbgaiuvel4vmt99fc1q@4ax.com>, Jon Beaver
<jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>wrote: You made this debate personal -- and now, you're paying theprice for it. You're a laughing-stock, and you've earned it, Mr.Mail Boxes Etcetera Lawyer.So now you're saying that Merlin IS a lawyer? Interesting.- Jon Beaver

Ken doesn't even remember what his arguments are anymore. He's sunk into
delirium.

In article <20031028072510.06706.00000201@mb-m16.aol.com>,
solarchase@aol.com (SolarChase) wrote:
Merlin (Bob The Beaver) wrote"Given your conduct on the net in the last few months, no one has the slightestdoubt that the Colorado Supreme Court acted properly in denying you a licenseto practice law."Ohhh, i dunno, i still have a slight doubt or two. Given Larry's love of dualstandards,

The only reason I may have dual standards is because different parties
have different burdens of proof. What you call having a "dual standard"
is no more of a "dual standard" than saying the prosecution must prove the
case beyond a reasonable doubt while the defendant need not do anything,
or the plaintiff must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence
while the defendant must not let that happen.
After all, if a lawyer, law student and average joe all did the exact samething in the exact same way, they all should be treated equally. We are agovernment of laws, not men, right ? No man shall be above the law.(Just checkin)

It depends what you mean by "treated equally." The law is QUITE clear
that there are different amounts of constitutional protection that apply
when you want to strip someone of a license than when you want to deny
them a license in the first place. Someone already licensed has a
constitutionally-protected property interest in their license, which an
applicant does not have. See Perry v. Sindermann and Roth v. Bd. of
Regents (neither of which is about a law license, so you can't say this is
just lawyers protecting themselves).
But as for the post that spawned your little missive: ROTFLM*F*AO !!!!! Asusual, Ken's writing style flirts with being over the top, but revealing any

"Flirts" with being over the top? Have you read his personal attacks and
the illogical leaps in his supposed "thinking"?

Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:59:38 GMT, mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote:Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:50:58 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>wrote:> You made this debate personal -- and now, you're paying the>price for it. You're a laughing-stock, and you've earned it, Mr.>Mail Boxes Etcetera Lawyer.So now you're saying that Merlin IS a lawyer? Interesting.- Jon Beaver Yeah, I noticed. Malice on Malice.If he wasn't crazy . . .- Jon Beaver

Yeah. Said so myself, huh?
When will I learn?

Merlin wrote:

[same old incontinent tripe]

Subject: The Scoop on "Merlin"
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:16:24 GMT
From: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.philosophy.law,talk.politics.guns,t alk.politics.drugs

All:

To be fair to the Beaver Otherwise Known as Merlin, I decided to
do a little research on him. The good news is that he doesn't appear
to be in serious trouble with the California bar that we know of, but
the bad news is that he's NOT exactly a junior partner at Fulbright &
Jaworski, either.

In fact, Merlin's "law office" is the local Mail Boxes Etc!!!

The Placer County Bar lists Robert Beaver's business address as
2974 Delta Fair Blvd., #281, Antioch, CA 94509, and his business
phone/fax as 925-755-7818. But that address happens to be the
unique address of the local Mail Boxes Etc. (now The UPS Store).
LOL! Send your cards, letters, and subpoenas to the local MBE. ;)

Unlike brother Jon -- who lists five alleged areas of competence,
and civil rights/First Amendment law is *not* one of them -- "Bob"
(which is what Merlin apparently goes by) doesn't list a single one!
(Virtually all the other lawyers list at least one area of competence,
based on my quick perusal of the list.)

[I'm particularly curious as to what you had to say to the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors in September of 2002, Bob.
Does your domestic partner/male roommate work for the County,
and did you complain about not getting benefits? (The minutes do
not indicate that you were appearing in a representative capacity,
which you would have had to disclose under ethics rules.) Or are
you a psychotic religious nutter?
If you're gay, that's okay with me -- though you should be fore-
warned that Teddi will either preach to you or ask you for a date.
But if you're a religious nutter, it explains why you and brother Jon
have gone so ballistic on me in such a highly personal and patently
offensive way.]

A top-drawer lawyer, "Merlin" is not. I can understand why he's
a bit reluctant to talk about his credentials and career.... ROTFL!

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:10:04 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
No matter how you cut it,

No matter how you cut it, sane people don't engage in recreational
defamation.

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:10:04 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: No matter how you cut it, No matter how you cut it, sane people don't engage in recreational defamation.

Okay, so we have established that you're not sane. And, for that
matter, neither is Merlin.

Where are the posts supporting your defamatory claim that I have
"threatened judges," Jon?

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:10:04 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: No matter how you cut it, No matter how you cut it, sane people don't engage in recreational defamation.

No defamation here (see attached). Everything is documented. The
only thing we don't know is whether Bob/Merlin wears the skirt in the
family, or is simply a Kaldis-class psychotic religious nutter.


Subject: The Scoop on "Merlin"
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:16:24 GMT
From: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.philosophy.law,talk.politics.guns,t alk.politics.drugs

All:

To be fair to the Beaver Otherwise Known as Merlin, I decided to
do a little research on him. The good news is that he doesn't appear
to be in serious trouble with the California bar that we know of, but
the bad news is that he's NOT exactly a junior partner at Fulbright &
Jaworski, either.

In fact, Merlin's "law office" is the local Mail Boxes Etc!!!

The Placer County Bar lists Robert Beaver's business address as
2974 Delta Fair Blvd., #281, Antioch, CA 94509, and his business
phone/fax as 925-755-7818. But that address happens to be the
unique address of the local Mail Boxes Etc. (now The UPS Store).
LOL! Send your cards, letters, and subpoenas to the local MBE. ;)

Unlike brother Jon -- who lists five alleged areas of competence,
and civil rights/First Amendment law is *not* one of them -- "Bob"
(which is what Merlin apparently goes by) doesn't list a single one!
(Virtually all the other lawyers list at least one area of competence,
based on my quick perusal of the list.)

[I'm particularly curious as to what you had to say to the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors in September of 2002, Bob.
Does your domestic partner/male roommate work for the County,
and did you complain about not getting benefits? (The minutes do
not indicate that you were appearing in a representative capacity,
which you would have had to disclose under ethics rules.) Or are
you a psychotic religious nutter?
If you're gay, that's okay with me -- though you should be fore-
warned that Teddi will either preach to you or ask you for a date.
But if you're a religious nutter, it explains why you and brother Jon
have gone so ballistic on me in such a highly personal and patently
offensive way.]

A top-drawer lawyer, "Merlin" is not. I can understand why he's
a bit reluctant to talk about his credentials and career.... ROTFL!

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:22:07 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:10:04 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: No matter how you cut it, No matter how you cut it, sane people don't engage in recreational defamation. No defamation here (see attached). Everything is documented.

My God, why would you admit to compiling personal information on
people?


- Jon Beaver

"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3F9FCB5D.5C25654C@concentric.net...

So, where's the advantage?

You have to be careful these days...there's a lot of kooks and
stalkers out there.

In article <3F9FCB5D.5C25654C@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: So, where's the advantage? In theory, I could put Bob/Merlin ona hundred junk-mail lists tomorrow (I would never do it, btw), andhe still has to get his mail. And they'll have to give it to him, as they

I know of at least one mailbox rental place that charges less than the
local post office. THat's one advantage. Maybe it's also closer to where
some people live/work than the post office.

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:none-2910031049570001@192.168.2.4... In article <3F9FCB5D.5C25654C@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: So, where's the advantage? In theory, I could put Bob/Merlin ona hundred junk-mail lists tomorrow (I would never do it, btw), andhe still has to get his mail. And they'll have to give it to him,
as they I know of at least one mailbox rental place that charges less than
the local post office. THat's one advantage. Maybe it's also closer to
where some people live/work than the post office.

In '96 I worked for a law firm that had a box at MBE...it was
basically right next door. It was used for job applications etc. To be
honest I'm not sure why that was their preference; I really didn't
think it was a big deal so I didn't ask.

wg bradley wrote:
"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message news:3F9FCB5D.5C25654C@concentric.net... So, where's the advantage? You have to be careful these days...there's a lot of kooks and stalkers out there.

You shouldn't need to worry about kooks or stalkers unless you
are a flaming asshole 24/7 -- and can't figure out how to turn it off.

Let's face it: Britney Spears, Merlin's not. :)

Of course, if Merlin persists in practicing recreational defamation,
he does so at his own risk. And he has more to worry about from
summonses and subpoenas than he ever will stalkers. He might be
the first person to ever be a defendant in a class action defamation
suit! :)

Seriously, if you want to find a practicing lawyer, all you have to do

is go to the friggin' courthouse, and look up a case. Remember that
clients have to find you, too. :)

All I wanted to see was what firm he worked for -- I spit up my
diet Coke when I saw that he was running his "practice" out of an
MBE! Five minutes of Google can be as funny as a whole season
of Seinfeld. :)

Larry wrote:
In article <3F9FCB5D.5C25654C@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: So, where's the advantage? In theory, I could put Bob/Merlin ona hundred junk-mail lists tomorrow (I would never do it, btw), andhe still has to get his mail. And they'll have to give it to him, as they I know of at least one mailbox rental place that charges less than the local post office. THat's one advantage. Maybe it's also closer to where some people live/work than the post office.

And it's cheaper and more efficient than having the postman deliver
the mail to your office, right? LOL!

Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:22:07 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote: On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:10:04 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: > No matter how you cut it, No matter how you cut it, sane people don't engage in recreational defamation. No defamation here (see attached). Everything is documented. My God, why would you admit to compiling personal information on people?

Why not, Jon? It's not against the law, is it? ["Merlin" can always sue
Google, while he's at it! :)] I have found this publicly available
informa-
tion to be exceedingly useful in our debates -- particularly, as I am able
to now show that "Merlin" is your brother, and that you two and Larry
Glasser have been coordinating your campaign of recreational defama-
tion for some time (just *try* to e-mail jbeaver@NO.com).

Before, I just thought you were a belligerent asshole who didn't know
how to 'turn it off' on-line. Now, I am persuaded that you are mentally
unbalanced, and quite dangerous. You are displaying the classic symp-
toms of the psychopath: aggressive and extremely anti-social behavior.
Frankly, if this dispute keeps escalating at the rate it has been, I'm going

to have to hire Chas to be my personal bodyguard. :)

"Threatening judges?" "Threatening families?" You libel me without
support for your claims and then, whine like stuck pigs when I bother
to document what I say?!? [Ken rolls eyes]

If you tell us that sane people don't engage in recreational defamation,
and you three have been 'caught out' for conspiring to do it, what does
that tell the rest of us about you, Jon?

"Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote Frankly, if this dispute keeps escalating at the rate it has been, I'm
going to have to hire Chas to be my personal bodyguard. :)

Reasonable rates; birthday parties a specialty.

Chas

In article <3F9FAEED.40F9E041@concentric.net>,
Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:wg bradley wrote: "Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message
All: To be fair to the Beaver Otherwise Known as Merlin, I decided to do a little research on him. The good news is that he doesn't appear to be in serious trouble with the California bar that we know of, but the bad news is that he's NOT exactly a junior partner at Fulbright & Jaworski, either. In fact, Merlin's "law office" is the local Mail Boxes Etc!!!
Pardon my ignorance...but what's wrong with having your mail directed to a M.B.Etc? I think more small firms and solo practitioners than you realize do this to manage junk mail, job applications, etc.. Of course you would use your office address as an address for service.
That's what you hire secretaries for!!! Having to trundle down tothe local MBE every day to get your mail is not time-efficient, andhaving the MBE open your friggin' mail creates serious ethics andconfidentiality problems (see, e.g., Colo. RPC 5.3). Like it or not,either you or your authorized agent pretty much has to go throughthe mail.

MBEs do not open mail. They're simply private versions of PO Boxes -- with
the advantage of being able to accept FedEx/UPS. Many businesses -- not
just law firms -- have PO Boxes. There's nothing "time-inefficient" about
it. A secretary picks up the mail at the post office once a day.

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

In article <3FA00DEE.452125FE@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:22:07 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:10:04 GMT, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>> wrote:>> > No matter how you cut it,>> No matter how you cut it, sane people don't engage in recreational> defamation. No defamation here (see attached). Everything is documented. My God, why would you admit to compiling personal information on people? Why not, Jon? It's not against the law, is it? ["Merlin" can always sueGoogle, while he's at it! :)] I have found this publicly availableinforma-tion to be exceedingly useful in our debates -- particularly, as I am ableto now show that "Merlin" is your brother, and that you two and LarryGlasser have been coordinating your campaign of recreational defama-tion for some time (just *try* to e-mail jbeaver@NO.com).

I didn't know we were coordinating our campaigns, Jon. Heck, I didn't
even know we had a campaign.

.....except for Kenny Smith creating new threads and subject lines!

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:none-3010030308320001@192.168.2.4... ....except for Kenny Smith creating new threads and subject lines!


Another symptom, Doc?

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote I didn't know we were coordinating our campaigns, Jon. Heck, I didn't even know we had a campaign.

Sure you do; don't feign naiveté`.
You guys all but pass notes from desk to desk and make hand signals.

c.

"Chas" <chas@chasclements.com> wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote I didn't know we were coordinating our campaigns, Jon. Heck, I didn't even know we had a campaign.Sure you do; don't feign naiveté`.You guys all but pass notes from desk to desk and make hand signals.c.
We might, and it might even have worked if the damn memo
system hadn't gone "code blue" and expired from Ken Smith's
sabotage with his 500+ liner abuse memos.

Then I musta got the wrong handsignal chart too, because I keep
signaling you to "slide", Clyde, and all you ever do is "punt".
What's with that?

-Merlin

David Marc Nieporent wrote:
In article <3F9FAEED.40F9E041@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote:wg bradley wrote: "Ken Smith" <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote in message > All: > To be fair to the Beaver Otherwise Known as Merlin, I decided to > do a little research on him. The good news is that he doesn't appear > to be in serious trouble with the California bar that we know of, but > the bad news is that he's NOT exactly a junior partner at Fulbright & > Jaworski, either. > In fact, Merlin's "law office" is the local Mail Boxes Etc!!! Pardon my ignorance...but what's wrong with having your mail directed to a M.B.Etc? I think more small firms and solo practitioners than you realize do this to manage junk mail, job applications, etc.. Of course you would use your office address as an address for service. That's what you hire secretaries for!!! Having to trundle down tothe local MBE every day to get your mail is not time-efficient, andhaving the MBE open your friggin' mail creates serious ethics andconfidentiality problems (see, e.g., Colo. RPC 5.3). Like it or not,either you or your authorized agent pretty much has to go throughthe mail. MBEs do not open mail. They're simply private versions of PO Boxes -- with the advantage of being able to accept FedEx/UPS. Many businesses -- not just law firms -- have PO Boxes. There's nothing "time-inefficient" about it. A secretary picks up the mail at the post office once a day.

As opposed to having the mail delivered to the office, thereby saving
the secretary the trip?!? Yup, makes *perfect* sense....

In article <3FA2760D.E29F5228@concentric.net>, Ken Smith
<Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: As opposed to having the mail delivered to the office, thereby savingthe secretary the trip?!? Yup, makes *perfect* sense....

Hey, you forget that another benefit is preventing weirdos and loons who
may be out there from finding your office address!

Larry wrote:
In article <3FA2760D.E29F5228@concentric.net>, Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net> wrote: As opposed to having the mail delivered to the office, thereby savingthe secretary the trip?!? Yup, makes *perfect* sense.... Hey, you forget that another benefit is preventing weirdos and loons who may be out there from finding your office address!

My guess is that "Merlin" would have more to fear from his clients --
like that guy in SoCal.... :)

Ken Smith wrote:
My guess is that "Merlin" would have more to fear from his clients -- like that guy in SoCal ... :)

I'd worry more about you than about Merlin. After all, who was it that was
not found psychologically fit to practise law?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: My guess is that "Merlin" would have more to fear from his clients -- like that guy in SoCal ... :) I'd worry more about you than about Merlin. After all, who was it that was not found psychologically fit to practise law?

No one that I know of, My Big Fat Greek Obsessive Crackpot.

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:
My guess is that "Merlin" would have more to fear from his clients -- like that guy in SoCal ... :)
I'd worry more about you than about Merlin. After all, who was it that was not found psychologically fit to practise law?
No one that I know of ...

Look in the mirror, and tell me who you see.

Or else, how did you manage to convince the Examiners' Board that you were of
sound mind, seeing as you refused to submit to the psychological examination
that they asked you to take?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net