Re: Ken Smith, Doing What He Does Best -- Kicking Ted's PATHETIC @SS!!!

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:

[...]

What Ted conveniently snipped:
_________________________________________________________________

[Dane] I may be wrong, but it was my understanding that the motion itself was
timely,

[Ted] Strictly speaking, no. The motion should have been filed within 60 days of
the indictment being handed down. The problem was, Geragos did not receive
his retainer until the 60-day time period was nearly expired.

[me] Be honest, Ted: GERAGOS FUCKED UP!!! All he had to do was ask for an extension of time, which he *certainly* would have received in light of the circumstances; do stop trying to waddle away from the indisputable facts. So now, the rule is "A statutory deadline is a deadline, except when Ted needs it to not be?"

[Dane] and that it was overruled upon the grounds that the science complained of
was simple physics, and outside of that, the other evidence provided by
testimony to the GJ itself provided probable cause for the trial upon the
merits.
_______________________________________________________________

That's what the trial judge said. Geragos appealed, as the trial judge
didn't even consider the scientific objections and glibly dismissed them
with a simple assertion that it was simple science.

It was.

TOO simple. Because Hayes' assertions aren't "simple science", but rather
simple BULLSH*T, as will become plainly evident should he have the temerity
to present them in court.

I'll believe that when I see it ... but considering your remarkable lack of credibility, I won't be holding my breath.

Biomechanics has been recognized as a legitimate scientific discipline in
the courtroom for at least a quarter-century,

But biomechanics CANNOT answer questions regarding intent.

All science can ever answer is *what* happened, as opposed to why, and if it can thus be determined via the use of biomechanics that Lauren had to have been thrown, then she was thrown.

and Hayes' theory explains Lauren's injuries (there had to be enough
gravitational force to break the wrist and jawbone).

Hayes is a quack.

As if *YOU* are qualified to opine on such matters, Ted.

Lauren died as the result of an ACCIDENT.

Lauren was *BORN* as result of an accident, but as to her death, the evidence we do have suggests that she was murdered. Your "landslide" theory is self-evident quackery, as any hiker will know.

So, now we know that Hayes' testimony will be received,

Which makes it pretty likely that Cameron will get off -- even exonerated.
Because this case should have NEVER EVEN BEEN BROUGHT on the basis that Hayes
testified to.

Nonsense. The hard evidence is Lauren's broken bones, and the only rational explanation offered to this point is that she was tossed. I will consider expert testimony to the contrary, however.

and that the initial "expert" wasn't all that much of an expert.

Au contraire. You don't know that.

It is a logical inference from the facts as given, as it is clear from my *personal* knowledge of biomechanics that it is not quackery. If you had any inclination to get off your lard-ass and exercise, you might see things differently.

You're just LYING about this, because
you have MUCH invested in a particular outcome in this case.

Apart from repeatedly making you look like the microencephalic idiot you are, I have absolutely nothing invested in the case. My life will not change as a result of the outcome, and the only positions that I've taken are that (1) Cam's constitutional rights have not been violated, and (2) that it appears more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren. There's still room for his being acquitted without my being wrong, and if the State can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be greatly troubled by an erroneous conviction. However, *I* will be the judge of whether I consider said conviction to be erroneous -- NOT you.

And you don't
want to see your position undermined. But THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU, Ken.

As if *your* arguments against *me* aren't tainted by that brush.

The initial expert was SUPERIOR and almost certainly more knowledgeable than
Hayes in these matters.

Superior to a Northwestern Ph.D. with a CV as thick as your belly fat? Identify the other expert and show us his CV, Ted. You made the claim; it is incumbent upon you to prove it.

Moreover, once he was consulted, his opinion SHOULD
HAVE become part of the investigative record.

Again, it depends on whether he was an expert. If Hayes said that he wasn't an expert in the areas he needed to be, and Hum relied upon that representation, he was making his statements in good faith and as such, did not lie. As I can't know whether this is the case without access to the "expert's" CV, and it makes zero sense for a prosecutor to lie about things where it is certain that he will be called on it, I have to give Hum the benefit of the doubt until the facts indicate otherwise.

I'm not saying that you don't have a case but rather, that you haven't proven your case. There IS a difference.

So the prosecutor LIED to the
court, saying that there had been no other expert, because there was a VERY
egregious violation committed when they neglected to have him testify before
the Grand Jury.

Under "Kaldis Rules," it is *ALWAYS* a "VERY egregious" violation when it is against Cam, but it is NEVER a violation when it is against me.

And once again, the "foul" Ted complains about wasn't even a foul at all.

Did Ken REALLY graduate from law school? If so, then Ken should ABSOLUTELY
know better. And by saying this, Ken is LYING. And he knows it.

You are leaping to conclusions, splashing the pool dry in the process. Until I see the "expert's" CV -- which you are deliberately withholding -- I can't draw any conclusions. I can, however, see why Hum might have said what you claim he did in good faith. Again, I NEED MORE FACTS, and you are traditionally a niggard with them.

So now, the rule is "Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in Ken's case
are molehills,

If there was indeed a violation of the 14th Amendment in Ken's case, then the
proper place to have raised that issue was in a cert petition to the United
States Supreme Court, not in a Federal District Court action.

That's not what the published law of the land says, but then again, you'd prefer that I not receive the protection of the laws, because it serves your purposes. If you don't have an absolute right to a remedy, you don't have a "right" at all. What part of that are you too fuckin' stupid and/or LSD brain-damaged to understand?

but violations of the California Evidence Code in Cam's are mountains?"

This one is.

I don't know that, because you haven't proven your case. Unless and until you show up with facts ruling out the alternative scenario I have proposed, your claim must be regarded as unproven. And don't give us the usual Kaldistapdance about how you can't reveal this information at this time, as you have admitted that this matter has been discussed in open court. Either put up or shut up.


Hypocrite!

What, for pointing out to you that you didn't do things by the book?

I did it by the book; it has been proven conclusively that the courts did not.

[...]

What Ted conveniently snipped, because he obviously can't deal with it:
____________________________________________________

[Dane] I was thinking that it was the appeal by Geragos of the adverse ruling that was filed out of time.

[Ted] Nope. The appeals court didn't even consider the objections to the junk science

[me] I doubt that you've even *seen* the inside of a gym since the Reagan Administration, Ted. Biomechanics isn't junk science, as it relies on simple physics that even you ought to know. The court has ruled, and Geragos fucked up. Stop your infernal whining!!!

[Ted] employed by the "expert" (as the trial judge had avoided before them),

[me] Geragos' objections were laughable, and the judge properly laughed at them. Whatever happened to your "the judge is always right" principle? So now, the rule is "The judge is always right in Ken's case, but Cam is always right in his?!?" Hypocrite!

[Ted]but they dismissed it on the basis that it was ORIGINALLY filed to the TRIAL court beyond the required time period.

[me] Geragos' motion was LEGALLY FRIVOLOUS, Ted. It was a TOTAL WASTE OF THE COURT'S TIME!!! He never should have filed it, because he knew or reasonably should have known that it was doomed to *CERTAIN* failure.

One standard for Mark Geragos, and another harsher standard pour moi. Teddious' limitless hypocrisy and bottomless spite shines through once again.

And I'll ask again: What are the "pitfalls" of Texas' system of bar admission? You keep waddling away from this question, as well.



--- Begin Message ---
  • From: Ken Smith <forget@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:48:31 GMT
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:


[blah, blah, blah ...]

[...]

What Ted dishonestly snipped:
_________________________________________

Translated, Ted can't hope to refute the arguments I offered and even he knows it and moreover, he knows that if he tries, he will be subject to even greater ridicule than he already is.
________________________________________

So, why won't you respond substantively?

Ken, you do NOT want to take matters regarding the regulation of the
practise of law out of the hands of the state Supreme Court, and give
other courts a measure of influence over them.

Why not, Ted?

Because there is a DOWN SIDE to doing so.

And what "DOWN SIDE" is that, Ted? What is the harm in Mark Geragos filing a frivolous 995 motion -- as he clearly did in Cam Brown's case, as the statute of limitations for filing it had passed, thus rendering it frivolous by definition -- that enforcement of sanctions can't cure?

Mechanisms designed to require judges to follow the law can only lead to
judges actually *following* the law. Where is the harm in that?

In the ABUSE of such mechanisms.

How so, Ted? When a Mark Geragos files a frivolous 995 motion, as he clearly did in your brother-in-law's murder case, he can be subjected to sanctions. At least in theory, this keeps the system from being abused. But that's almost beside the point, as you continue to desperately dodge my questions, Ted.

Once again, you have done some dishonest snipping, clearly intended to avoid having to address my points. My restoration follows:
_______________________________________________

You wrote:
> And that is EXACTLY what would happen if you were to prevail in your >case. If you cannot see the pitfalls associated with such a change, >then perhaps you should not be a lawyer at all.

I responded:
You had better tell that to the state of Texas, which has the precise system I envision for Colorado. The state bar handles the decisions, in much the same manner as any other regulatory agency. If an applicant is unsatisfied with the decision for whatever reason, he can file suit in a Texas district court to gain redress. The *only* time the state supreme court even *touches* a bar case is if and when it accepts a petition for cert. Their system works within the law and respects the Bill of Rights ... and works just fine, thank you.

So, what are the "pitfalls" associated with Texas' system? Since you seem to think that they are so patently obvious, you ought to be able to enumerate them here, and explain to us why Texas has not corrected them. Crickets on stand-by.

********************************************************
I think Loretta's got you pegged -- the *only* reason you post here is out of an almost limitless degree of personal spite. As she put it:
____________________________________________________

I don't care if you inject heroin every day. In fact, I think it would
be a vast improvement. Spare us your righteous indignation and
sanctimonious hypocrisy. It has to be the most repulsive ongoing
display in history. It's like an endless loop.

Regardless of your real or imaginary substance use, about which I could
not care less, there is no denying your pathological malice and
obsessive desire to spite Ken, Kent, Moe, Wayne, me, and anyone else
who disagrees with you.

Yes, as Moe and all of us accused you - you post virtually everything
out of malice. Not out of concern, not out of a sense of justice, not
out of real issues, but out of simple spite.

Nobody wants to serve the god you serve, Toad. You make everyone sick.
__________________________________________________


--- End Message ---