| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Theodore A. Kaldis
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: 484 F.3d 1281 |
 |
|
Someone suing Pro Se gets a right nasty spanking in case 484 F.3d 1281,
seen here:
<http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/484/484.F3d.1281.04-1470.04-1468.html>
(Some of you might already be familiar with this case.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Marcus Aurelius
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
I believe that taking away his right to earn a living through refusal
to allow him to obtain a law license involves an attempt by ther Court
to abrogate a basic Constitutional right such that it is a duty of
the state to prove that he is unfit to practice law rather than his
duty.
Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved. It is clear to me that there was
a significant and un Constitutional breech of this persons civil
rights, in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Theodore A. Kaldis
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
| Quote: | I believe that taking away his right to earn a living through refusal
to allow him to obtain a law license
|
He's a CPA. He's not hurting.
| Quote: | involves an attempt by ther Court to abrogate a basic Constitutional
right
|
Au contraire. The court has an obligation to the people to ensure that
those who are admitted to the bar are both morally and psychologically
fit to practise law.
| Quote: | such that it is a duty of the state to prove that he is unfit to
practice law rather than his duty.
|
Nope. It is exactly the opposite. By applying for membership to the
bar, a candidate thereby places his moral and psychological fitness into
question, and the burden falls upon him to demonstrate it should he be
required by the bar examiners to do so. That's just the way it is.
| Quote: | Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved.
|
Except that one does NOT have an unconditional right to practise law.
| Quote: | It is clear to me that there was a significant and un Constitutional
breech of this persons civil rights, in my opinion.
|
Sorry, but the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disagrees with you. Denver
Federal District Court Judge Edward Nottingham (who heard the Timothy
McVeigh case) disagrees with you. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
disagrees with you. Colorado District Court Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless
disagrees with you. And the Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Do you have any SUBSTANTIVE reason to indicate why your position is
correct, and theirs is wrong?
Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at length
here. And there are some of us who have good reason to believe that the
Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to something when they asked
Ken to submit to a psychological examination.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
forevernitefan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On Jul 29, 10:29 pm, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Marcus Aurelius wrote:
> I believe that taking away his right to earn a living through refusal
> to allow him to obtain a law license
He's a CPA. He's not hurting.
> involves an attempt by ther Court to abrogate a basic Constitutional
> right
Au contraire. The court has an obligation to the people to ensure that
those who are admitted to the bar are both morally and psychologically
fit to practise law.
> such that it is a duty of the state to prove that he is unfit to
> practice law rather than his duty.
Nope. It is exactly the opposite. By applying for membership to the
bar, a candidate thereby places his moral and psychological fitness into
question, and the burden falls upon him to demonstrate it should he be
required by the bar examiners to do so. That's just the way it is.
> Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
> reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
> because of the basic right involved.
Except that one does NOT have an unconditional right to practise law.
> It is clear to me that there was a significant and un Constitutional
> breech of this persons civil rights, in my opinion.
Sorry, but the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disagrees with you. Denver
Federal District Court Judge Edward Nottingham (who heard the Timothy
McVeigh case) disagrees with you. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
disagrees with you. Colorado District Court Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless
disagrees with you. And the Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Do you have any SUBSTANTIVE reason to indicate why your position is
correct, and theirs is wrong?
Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at length
here. And there are some of us who have good reason to believe that the
Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to something when they asked
Ken to submit to a psychological examination.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
|
Aw geez Teddie you latching on to Ken Smith AGAIN?
And I thought you finally got your screwed up head back to some
semblance of sanity.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Theodore A. Kaldis
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
forevernitefan wrote:
| Quote: | Aw geez Teddie you latching on to Ken Smith AGAIN?
|
You got it exactly bass-ackwards. Ken is following _ME_. See:
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/caseinsider/4390014427903927980/>
Or, look at the bottom link at:
<http://www.freecambrown.org/>
(the link just above the counter).
| Quote: | And I thought you finally got your screwed up head back to some
semblance of sanity.
|
"To an insane world, the sane world must seem insane."
--Star Trek [TOS]
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@avenuecable.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:47:28 GMT, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Someone suing Pro Se gets a right nasty spanking in case 484 F.3d 1281,
seen here:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/484/484.F3d.1281.04-1470.04-1468.html
(Some of you might already be familiar with this case.)
|
Still stalking Ken, huh?
You really NEED professional mental health care. Your behavior
is NOT normal, Ted. Really.
--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:29:38 GMT, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Marcus Aurelius wrote:
I believe that taking away his right to earn a living through refusal
to allow him to obtain a law license
He's a CPA. He's not hurting.
involves an attempt by ther Court to abrogate a basic Constitutional
right
Au contraire. The court has an obligation to the people to ensure that
those who are admitted to the bar are both morally and psychologically
fit to practise law.
|
And the exam Ken took shows he is.
| Quote: |
such that it is a duty of the state to prove that he is unfit to
practice law rather than his duty.
Nope. It is exactly the opposite. By applying for membership to the
bar, a candidate thereby places his moral and psychological fitness into
question, and the burden falls upon him to demonstrate it should he be
required by the bar examiners to do so. That's just the way it is.
|
And Ken has actually done so.
You consistently refuse to mention that Ken took such an exam and
was found to be mentally sound.
| Quote: |
Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved.
Except that one does NOT have an unconditional right to practise law.
|
As you word it, all should agree.
| Quote: |
It is clear to me that there was a significant and un Constitutional
breech of this persons civil rights, in my opinion.
Sorry, but the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disagrees with you.
|
DUH!
Ken wouldn't have filed suit if they agreed with Ken, Marcus, et
al.
| Quote: | Denver
Federal District Court Judge Edward Nottingham (who heard the Timothy
McVeigh case) disagrees with you. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
disagrees with you. Colorado District Court Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless
disagrees with you. And the Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.
|
You're stalking Ken. Old news.
| Quote: | Do you have any SUBSTANTIVE reason to indicate why your position is
correct, and theirs is wrong?
|
Gee, people named in the suit disagree. Who would have thought
such a thing possible?
| Quote: |
Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at length
here. And there are some of us who have good reason to believe that the
Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to something when they asked
Ken to submit to a psychological examination.
|
Because your mind is so messed up from your checkered
pharmaceutical past (Electric Beer, Ted?) that you see rational as
irrational.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:13:10 -0700 (PDT), Marcus Aurelius
<alexander26a@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I believe that taking away his right to earn a living through refusal
to allow him to obtain a law license involves an attempt by ther Court
to abrogate a basic Constitutional right such that it is a duty of
the state to prove that he is unfit to practice law rather than his
duty.
|
Ken's doing well. The Bar's having punished him for refusing
their demand (if one can be punished for refusing a request, it's not
a request) hasn't actually harmed his bottom line a great deal.
The Bar demanded he take a psychological exam. A mental health
professional of the Bar's choosing would perform the exam, and Ken
would pay for it. Ken refused because of the conditions.
Ken did take such an exam with a mental health professional of
his choosing. The results, paraphrased: Boringly normal.
| Quote: | Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved. It is clear to me that there was
a significant and un Constitutional breech of this persons civil
rights, in my opinion.
|
My opinion matches yours.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:51:35 -0700 (PDT), forevernitefan
<fvrnite@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at length
here. And there are some of us who have good reason to believe that the
Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to something when they asked
Ken to submit to a psychological examination.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Aw geez Teddie you latching on to Ken Smith AGAIN?
|
Not again. Still.
Ken and his case is the primary focal point of Ted's OCD.
| Quote: |
And I thought you finally got your screwed up head back to some
semblance of sanity.
|
I'm starting to question if such is possible with Ted.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:27:40 GMT, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | forevernitefan wrote:
Aw geez Teddie you latching on to Ken Smith AGAIN?
You got it exactly bass-ackwards. Ken is following _ME_. See:
|
Did he follow you when you posted detailed directions from the
off ramp to his home?
You're a stalker. You need professional mental health care.
| Quote: |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/caseinsider/4390014427903927980/
Or, look at the bottom link at:
http://www.freecambrown.org/
(the link just above the counter).
|
A link to a comment section in which you have invited anyone who
wishes to post (so long as the posts are PRO-Cameron).
| Quote: | And I thought you finally got your screwed up head back to some
semblance of sanity.
"To an insane world, the sane world must seem insane."
--Star Trek [TOS]
|
Which goes far in explaining your behavior.
--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Reality_Check©
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CeRjk.274709$SV4.162799@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: | Marcus Aurelius wrote:
I believe that taking away his right to earn a living through refusal
to allow him to obtain a law license
He's a CPA. He's not hurting.
involves an attempt by ther Court to abrogate a basic Constitutional
right
Au contraire. The court has an obligation to the people to ensure that
those who are admitted to the bar are both morally and psychologically
fit to practise law.
|
Define, objectively, "morally fit".
Now do the same for "psychologically fit".
| Quote: |
such that it is a duty of the state to prove that he is unfit to
practice law rather than his duty.
Nope. It is exactly the opposite. By applying for membership to the
bar, a candidate thereby places his moral and psychological fitness into
question,
|
ibid.
| Quote: | and the burden falls upon him to demonstrate it should he be
required by the bar examiners to do so. That's just the way it is.
|
And child-killer Cameron Brown is still rotting in jail.
That's just the way it is.
| Quote: |
Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved.
Except that one does NOT have an unconditional right to practise law.
|
He met all the *objective* qualifications.
| Quote: |
It is clear to me that there was a significant and un Constitutional
breech of this persons civil rights, in my opinion.
Sorry, but the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board disagrees with you. Denver
Federal District Court Judge Edward Nottingham (who heard the Timothy
McVeigh case)
|
Naughty Nottingham?
LOL!
| Quote: | disagrees with you. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
disagrees with you. Colorado District Court Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless
disagrees with you. And the Colorado Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Do you have any SUBSTANTIVE reason to indicate why your position is
correct, and theirs is wrong?
Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at length
here. And there are some of us who have good reason to believe that the
Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to something when they asked
Ken to submit to a psychological examination.
|
What, exactly, were they "on to" ? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Theodore A. Kaldis
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
Reality_Check© wrote:
| Quote: | Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
[...]
The court has an obligation to the people to ensure that those who
are admitted to the bar are both morally and psychologically fit to
practise law.
Define, objectively, "morally fit".
|
Interact honestly with others.
[For the record, Ken's moral fitness has NOT been called into question.]
| Quote: | Now do the same for "psychologically fit".
|
Be psychologically healthy.
| Quote: | Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved.
Except that one does NOT have an unconditional right to practise law.
He met all the *objective* qualifications.
|
Not according to the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.
| Quote: | Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at
length here. And there are some of us who have good reason to
believe that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to
something when they asked Ken to submit to a psychological
examination.
What, exactly, were they "on to" ?
|
That Ken Smith appears to exhibit signs of mental instability.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Wills
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:35 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:17:48 GMT, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Reality_Check© wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
[...]
The court has an obligation to the people to ensure that those who
are admitted to the bar are both morally and psychologically fit to
practise law.
Define, objectively, "morally fit".
Interact honestly with others.
[For the record, Ken's moral fitness has NOT been called into question.]
|
Every time he exposes one of your mentally unsound rants, you
accuse him of being dishonest.
| Quote: |
Now do the same for "psychologically fit".
Be psychologically healthy.
|
The examination he took shows that he is.
| Quote: |
Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved.
Except that one does NOT have an unconditional right to practise law.
He met all the *objective* qualifications.
Not according to the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.
|
They state he met all the objective qualifications.
| Quote: |
Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at
length here. And there are some of us who have good reason to
believe that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to
something when they asked Ken to submit to a psychological
examination.
What, exactly, were they "on to" ?
That Ken Smith appears to exhibit signs of mental instability.
|
Explain to the readers why the examination he took lists him as
being normal.
--
"Excuse me. Have you seen a blowfish driving a sports car?"
"Bloody Torchwood!" |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Theodore A. Kaldis
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
| Quote: | Explain to the readers why the examination he took lists him as being
normal.
|
I'd like to explain to the readers that you are a convicted garage
burglar from Iowa, and an apparent psychopath. If anyone wants more
information, they can click on the link below:
<http://www-wireless.usenet-replayer.com/data/ia/talk/misc/49575.html>
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@avenuecable.com |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Reality_Check©
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Re: 484 F.3d 1281 |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:0tmkk.278490$SV4.119876@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: | Reality_Check© wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
[...]
The court has an obligation to the people to ensure that those who
are admitted to the bar are both morally and psychologically fit to
practise law.
Define, objectively, "morally fit".
Interact honestly with others.
[For the record, Ken's moral fitness has NOT been called into question.]
|
So one can't commit an "immoral act" if it doesn't involve dishonest
interaction with others, eh?
| Quote: |
Now do the same for "psychologically fit".
Be psychologically healthy.
|
That's circular, and subjective.
Try again.
| Quote: | Also, the burder of proof in such a case should be without a
reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence
because of the basic right involved.
Except that one does NOT have an unconditional right to practise law.
He met all the *objective* qualifications.
Not according to the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.
|
When did the CBEB ever claim to be "objective" in their determination?
| Quote: |
Anyway, this is an old story that has already been hashed out at
length here. And there are some of us who have good reason to
believe that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was indeed on to
something when they asked Ken to submit to a psychological
examination.
What, exactly, were they "on to" ?
That Ken Smith appears to exhibit signs of mental instability.
|
What "signs" are those? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
