Home » LAW »» Additional Legal Subjects

More Ken Smith BS ... (Additional Legal Subjects)

Comments (16) | Promote | Bookmark |

• Leave a Comment Now.
• Comments
• Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:42:00 GMT(1)
• Ken Smith wrote:
  Theodore A. Kaldis"wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
  > You mentioned "mandamus" in a previous message, so presumably you are> asking for a writ of mandamus for the lower court to direct the state> Supreme Court to do one thing or another. But let's be real here. (I> know that for you, this must be very hard, but do please try.) What> lower state court judge in his right mind is going to order the state> Supreme Court around? Short answer: it ain't gonna happen, bucko.
  To close this one up, I'd like you to actually state your position.
  I already have.
  Then if you have, it won't hurt you to do it again, will it?
  
  Why should I bother? You didn't listen the first time, why should I think
  tbat you would listen now?
  Are you saying that our courts are too corrupt to be relied upon to do their job
  You tell me.
  Uh, I'm asking *YOU* to tell me what *YOU* are saying! Why should I be expected to read your mind?
  
  You've had experience with courts, and you've already told us that you think
  they are corrupt. Regardless of what I think, it seems that your mind is
  made up.
  -- applying the law to the facts of a case, in accordance with the principle of stare decisis -- or that a state court of general jurisdiction does not have the legal authority to decide a claim based on federal law and as such, doesn't have the power to order a superior state court to follow federal law?
  Come on, Ken. You've been around the block a few times. You know how things work in the real world.
  Then come right out and say it, Ted! It won't hurt you to say that "Ken will not get what he is entitled to as a matter of law, because the courts are too corrupt to follow the law."
  
  Based on all that I have seen, I'm not so sure that Ken got a raw deal.
  [It may hurt your pride a bit, though.]
  
  Ken, I'm not so sure that you were denied justice here. Based on your
  conduct subsequent to being denied a law licence, it just might be that the
  Examiners' Board came to the right decision for the wrong reasons. You've
  played this all wrong. Asking a state court to order the State Supreme Court
  to do one thing or another? Even IF you have a valid claim, you're going to
  see the state judge do a tap dance better than Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire.
  And the whole top legal establishment of the state will have a good laugh at
  your expense. Get your head screwed on, this is NOT the way to do it.
  Try to be real here, and give me a rule of law.
  Which do you want? These two can be mutually exclusive.
  So, you are saying that the *real* rule of law is that there is no rule of law? A yes or no answer will do here, Ted.
  
  A "yes" or "no" answer will NOT do. My recent experiences tell me that even
  under the best of circumstances, a rough approximation is the best that we
  can hope for. All the major players have staked their positions, and now
  they have to play their hand through, if even for no other reason, just to
  save face.
  --
  Theodore A. Kaldis
  kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net
• Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:24:00 GMT(2)
• Ken Smith wrote:
  Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:
  I'll just comment on this bit:
  The timing is also suspicious. He files for visitation in October, and she suddenly "falls off" a cliff in November.
  He filed for visitation in Feb. of '99 and it was granted in Oct. of '99. The accident happened in Nov. of 2000. He had been seeing the girl regularly for over a year.
  Correction: According to the Times, he filed for joint custody in October, 2000.
  
  Joint CUSTODY is something other than visitation.
  --
  Theodore A. Kaldis
  kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net
• Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:01:00 GMT(3)
• RT wrote:
  Ken Smith wrote in message <40000839.FEE9EC9E@lawknowledge.org.concentric.net>... Really, Ted. I don't have a horse in this race, other than toshow you how it feels. And I gather that you don't like it toomuch. I didn't think you would.... Yair. Well. Seems lawyers have been voted the scum of the professions again - according to the newspaper reports today. Next worst are pawnbrokers, then real estate agents and used car salesmen. Politicians come in 5th!!! Why is nobody surprised...?
  
  As Dershowitz notes, they've earned their reputation. And the
  last thing they want is ballsy reformers at bar.
• Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:36:00 GMT(4)
• Ken Smith wrote in message <40000839.FEE9EC9E@lawknowledge.org.concentric.net>... Really, Ted. I don't have a horse in this race, other than toshow you how it feels. And I gather that you don't like it toomuch. I didn't think you would....
  
  Yair.
  
  Well.
  
  Seems lawyers have been voted the scum of the professions again - according
  to the newspaper reports today. Next worst are pawnbrokers, then real
  estate agents and used car salesmen. Politicians come in 5th!!!
  
  Why is nobody surprised...?
• Sat, 10 Jan 2004 12:31:00 GMT(5)
• "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
  And don't try to tell me what kind of man my brother-in-law is -- I already know him quite well. He's the sort of guy who not only would, but for me already has [figuratively AND literally] given me the shirt off his back and food off his plate.
  
  Interesting admission, Ted. You've said that you can't do your
  annual jaunt to Aus this year -- since you have frequent flier miles
  and family in Mel'bun, the cost should be relatively modest. And
  now, you admit that your baggage-handler brother-in-law had to
  bail you out?!?
  
  It's not like this one would have been too far in the past, as Cam
  was obviously spending his time with a woman other than your sis-
  ter back in the mid-'90s (unless, of course, he was having an affair
  behind your sister's back). And iirc, you were this bigshot telecom
  engineer, travelling the world. Unless things have "gone south" for
  you in a very big way and quite recently, Cam shouldn't have had
  to have rendered financial assistance.
  
  Reckon it sucks to be one of the victims of the George W. Bush
  economy....
• Wed, 14 Jan 2004 07:19:00 GMT(6)
• "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
  Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: You mentioned "mandamus" in a previous message, so presumably you are asking for a writ of mandamus for the lower court to direct the state Supreme Court to do one thing or another. But let's be real here. (I know that for you, this must be very hard, but do please try.) What lower state court judge in his right mind is going to order the state Supreme Court around? Short answer: it ain't gonna happen, bucko. To close this one up, I'd like you to actually state your position. I already have.
  
  Then if you have, it won't hurt you to do it again, will it?
  Are you saying that our courts are too corrupt to be relied upon to do their job You tell me.
  
  Uh, I'm asking *YOU* to tell me what *YOU* are saying! Why
  should I be expected to read your mind?
  -- applying the law to the facts of a case, in accordance with the principle of stare decisis -- or that a state court of general jurisdiction does not have the legal authority to decide a claim based on federal law and as such, doesn't have the power to order a superior state court to follow federal law? Come on, Ken. You've been around the block a few times. You know how things work in the real world.
  
  Then come right out and say it, Ted! It won't hurt you to say that
  "Ken will not get what he is entitled to as a matter of law, because
  the courts are too corrupt to follow the law." [It may hurt your pride
  a bit, though.]
  Try to be real here, and give me a rule of law. Which do you want? These two can be mutually exclusive.
  
  So, you are saying that the *real* rule of law is that there is no rule
  of law? A yes or no answer will do here, Ted.
• Sun, 11 Jan 2004 07:11:00 GMT(7)
• "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
  
  [snip]
  You mentioned "mandamus" in a previous message, so presumably you are asking for a writ of mandamus for the lower court to direct the state Supreme Court to do one thing or another. But let's be real here. (I know that for you, this must be very hard, but do please try.) What lower state court judge in his right mind is going to order the state Supreme Court around? Short answer: it ain't gonna happen, bucko.
  
  To close this one up, I'd like you to actually state your position.
  Are you saying that our courts are too corrupt to be relied upon
  to do their job -- applying the law to the facts of a case, in accor-
  dance with the principle of stare decisis -- or that a state court of
  general jurisdiction does not have the legal authority to decide a
  claim based on federal law and as such, doesn't have the power
  to order a superior state court to follow federal law?
  
  Try to be real here, and give me a rule of law.
• Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:33:00 GMT(8)
• Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:Theodore A. Kaldis"wrote:Ken Smith wrote:>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>>You mentioned "mandamus" in a previous message, so presumably you are>>asking for a writ of mandamus for the lower court to direct the state>>Supreme Court to do one thing or another. But let's be real here. (I>>know that for you, this must be very hard, but do please try.) What>>lower state court judge in his right mind is going to order the state>>Supreme Court around? Short answer: it ain't gonna happen, bucko.>>To close this one up, I'd like you to actually state your position.I already have.Then if you have, it won't hurt you to do it again, will it?
  Why should I bother? You didn't listen the first time, why should I think tbat you would listen now?
  
  I'd like you to actually state your position for the record, as you
  are compulsively evasive. (If you were any younger, I'd accuse Bill
  Clinton of being your father.... :))
  
  >Are you saying that our courts are too corrupt to be relied upon to do>their job
  You tell me.Uh, I'm asking *YOU* to tell me what *YOU* are saying! Why should I beexpected to read your mind? You've had experience with courts, and you've already told us that you think they are corrupt. Regardless of what I think, it seems that your mind is made up.
  
  You're ducking the issue again, Ted. A simple yes or no answer will do.
  
  >-- applying the law to the facts of a case, in accordance with the>principle of stare decisis -- or that a state court of general>jurisdiction does not have the legal authority to decide a claim based on>federal law and as such, doesn't have the power to order a superior state>court to follow federal law?Come on, Ken. You've been around the block a few times. You know howthings work in the real world.Then come right out and say it, Ted! It won't hurt you to say that "Kenwill not get what he is entitled to as a matter of law, because the courtsare too corrupt to follow the law." Based on all that I have seen, I'm not so sure that Ken got a raw deal.
  
  Stop being so intentionally vague, Ted! Answer the question, or
  admit that you don't *have* an answer which is logically consistent with
  your outcome-based position.
  
  [It may hurt your pride a bit, though.] Ken, I'm not so sure that you were denied justice here.
  
  What is "justice?" What I was entitled to as a matter of law, or
  what the Ku Klux Klan was going to dish out? We know "what happened" in
  the Reconstruction South, as opposed to what was supposed to happen, and
  we call that "injustice."
  
  When you proclaim that I was not denied justice, you have to speak in
  theoretical terms, as opposed to real-world ones. "Niggers" didn't stand
  a chance in the Reconstruction South, but we knew how the cases would be
  decided. This "******" may well be in the same boat, but let's not call
  it "justice."
  
  Based on your conduct subsequent to being denied a law licence, it just might be that the Examiners' Board came to the right decision for the wrong reasons. You've played this all wrong. Asking a state court to order the State Supreme Court to do one thing or another? Even IF you have a valid claim, you're going to see the state judge do a tap dance better than Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire.
  
  Because he won't *follow* the law? If the judge decides that I have
  a valid claim, why shouldn't he ensure that I get the relief I am
  entitled to as a matter of law?
  
  Either a state district court has inherent authority to act on
  federal claims -- thereby acting as a surrogate federal court -- or it
  does not. (And if you had read even a few cases, you would know that it
  does. And yes, when acting in that capacity, it can order ANY state
  body around.)
  
  Think about it carefully, Ted. The judges in Stalin's law courts
  knew what the law required them to do, but they also realized that their
  mas- ters in the Party would do to them if they followed that law. So,
  they convicted people who would not have otherwise been convicted. Did
  those people get "justice?" A yes or no answer will do here.
  And the whole top legal establishment of the state will have a good laugh at your expense. Get your head screwed on, this is NOT the way to do it.
  
  "Don't fight City Hall -- because the Bill of Rights isn't worth the
  paper it's printed on." Thank you for your "advice," Komrade Kaldis.
  
  >Try to be real here, and give me a rule of law.Which do you want? These two can be mutually exclusive.So, you are saying that the *real* rule of law is that there is no rule oflaw? A yes or no answer will do here, Ted. A "yes" or "no" answer will NOT do. My recent experiences tell me that even under the best of circumstances, a rough approximation is the best that we can hope for. All the major players have staked their positions, and now they have to play their hand through, if even for no other reason, just to save face.
  
  Including you. You can't admit that I have been wronged, because you
  would lose face. Now, we can only hope that Cam gets the death sentence
  you implicitly concede he deserves -- for otherwise, someone would "lose
  face," and we can count on the courts to avoid that at any cost.
• Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:10:00 GMT(9)
• On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:20:53 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
  <kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net> wrote: Ineed to come to the aid of someone who knows too well what real abuse of thejudicial system by the authorities is all about, and what kind of injustice itcan result in.
  
  Then you can come to my aid. I have been the victim of the worst
  abuse you can imagine short of being killed. E-mail me
  leahcim49@lawknowledge.org.frontiernet.net
  
  ..
  
  **************************
  A preacher is the blind
  leading the blind...
  
  The Last Church
  http://www.thelastchurch.org
  michael@lawknowledge.org.thelastchurch.org
  
  alt.religion.thelastchurch
  alt.religion.the-last-church
• Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:17:00 GMT(10)
• Ken, here is my response to your latest meanspirited slander:
  
  --
  Theodore A. Kaldis
  kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net
• Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:37:00 GMT(11)
• Ken Smith wrote:
  Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
  And don't try to tell me what kind of man my brother-in-law is -- I already know him quite well. He's the sort of guy who not only would, but for me already has [figuratively AND literally] given me the shirt off his back and food off his plate.
  Interesting admission, Ted.
  
  Don't try to make more of it than it is, Ken. As usual, you know squat.
  You've said that you can't do your annual jaunt to Aus this year -- since you have frequent flier miles and family in Mel'bun, the cost should be relatively modest.
  
  It's not the expense that's holding me back -- that's the least of my
  worries. But how can I run off and enjoy myself when my brother-in-law sits
  in jail charged with a crime he didn't commit -- and capital murder at that?
  I'm not an uncaring boor (presumably) like you.
  And now, you admit that your baggage-handler brother-in-law had to bail you out?!?
  
  That's not what I mean Ken. But when I've shown up at their door unannounced
  and there's only dinner enough for two, he's insisted that I stay and they'll
  set a place for me. (And truth be told, I'd rather that he didn't -- Stuart
  Anderson's Black Angus is just a little ways down the road, and I'd just as
  soon have a nice steak dinner. But he won't take "no" for an answer.)
  It's not like this one would have been too far in the past, as Cam was obviously spending his time with a woman other than your sister back in the mid-'90s (unless, of course, he was having an affair behind your sister's back).
  
  This was before my sister met him. You lowlife.
  And iirc, you were this bigshot telecom engineer, travelling the world. Unless things have "gone south" for you in a very big way and quite recently, Cam shouldn't have had to have rendered financial assistance.
  
  No one said it was financial (except for you, and mendacity seems to be a
  habit of yours). For the record, I have never asked, needed, or accepted
  financial assistance from him.
  Reckon it sucks to be one of the victims of the George W. Bush economy ...
  
  Telecom has indeed taken a BIG hit in recent years, but I've weathered it
  pretty well. And George W. Bush had nothing to do with it -- it was the
  result of the dot.com bust (a phenomenon of the phony Clinton "boom").
  --
  Theodore A. Kaldis
  kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net
• Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:02:00 GMT(12)
• "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
  Ken Smith wrote: I'll just comment on this bit: The timing is also suspicious. He files for visitation in October, and she suddenly "falls off" a cliff in November. He filed for visitation in Feb. of '99 and it was granted in Oct. of '99. The accident happened in Nov. of 2000. He had been seeing the girl regularly for over a year.
  
  Correction: According to the Times, he filed for joint custody in
  October, 2000.
• Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:16:00 GMT(13)
• Ken Smith wrote:
  Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
  Ken, here is my response to your latest meanspirited slander:
  You don't have anything to say in rebuttal, because everything I say is true. Sucks for you, doesn't it?
  
  Ken, we're going to put up a website with testimonials about Cameron from
  people who know him. Everything will be signed and attributed, and posted
  verbatim as they wrote it, with no editing from us. The purpose of this
  website will be to counter the inaccuracies and misrepresentations that have
  appeared in the press.
  
  Since you posted your responses openly in a public forum, I'm sure that you
  won't have any objections to my taking excerpts from them (with attribution,
  of course) as examples of just how seriously Cameron's reputation has been
  damaged by these misrepresentations. (Excerpts that may be posted will be
  confined to only those that refer to Cameron and his situation. There will
  be no other extraneous information posted that has no relevance to the case
  at hand.)
  --
  Theodore A. Kaldis
  kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net
• Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:49:00 GMT(14)
• Ken Smith wrote:
  Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
  You mentioned "mandamus" in a previous message, so presumably you are asking for a writ of mandamus for the lower court to direct the state Supreme Court to do one thing or another. But let's be real here. (I know that for you, this must be very hard, but do please try.) What lower state court judge in his right mind is going to order the state Supreme Court around? Short answer: it ain't gonna happen, bucko.
  To close this one up, I'd like you to actually state your position.
  
  I already have.
  Are you saying that our courts are too corrupt to be relied upon to do their job
  
  You tell me. If no, then why did you refuse to take the psychological
  examination? You have no one to blame but yourself. If yes, then why are
  you even bothering with the state case? Are you a glutton for punishment?
  -- applying the law to the facts of a case, in accordance with the principle of stare decisis -- or that a state court of general jurisdiction does not have the legal authority to decide a claim based on federal law and as such, doesn't have the power to order a superior state court to follow federal law?
  
  Come on, Ken. You've been around the block a few times. You know how things
  work in the real world.
  Try to be real here, and give me a rule of law.
  
  Which do you want? These two can be mutually exclusive.
  --
  Theodore A. Kaldis
  kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net
• Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:11:00 GMT(15)
• "Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
  Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: I'll just comment on this bit:> The timing is also suspicious. He files for visitation in October, and> she suddenly "falls off" a cliff in November. He filed for visitation in Feb. of '99 and it was granted in Oct. of '99. The accident happened in Nov. of 2000. He had been seeing the girl regularly for over a year. Correction: According to the Times, he filed for joint custody in October, 2000. Joint CUSTODY is something other than visitation.
  
  The Times got it right, which is all that matters But that's beside
  the point. One I think I made.
  
  Most folks would say I'm a pretty nice guy. But when you try to
  injure me and my reputation as you have over the past few years,
  you shouldn't expect that your malice will not have consequences.
  And, if I were as flat-out vindictive as you, I'm creative enough to
  find ways to make Cam's situation more precarious.
  
  That having been said, I'd say that Cam is facing the fight of his
  life, and, quite likely, a fight for his life. If I were the prosecuting
  attorney, I would have filed lesser charges in addition to the mur-
  der charge. If they haven't, it means that they really believe that
  it's murder, and they have experts who can testify that she would
  not have landed where she did if she had merely slipped. That's
  enough to get them through the preliminary hearing stage.
  If they can prove that, it's all over for Cam. All this crap about
  his "reputation" goes out the window; they have motive, method,
  and opportunity, and aggravating factors almost certain to bring
  on the death penalty. Remember, we're talking about a 4-year-
  old girl here, and as Father Geoghan learned the hard way, even
  if society doesn't kill him, his fellow inmates probably would.
  
  Similarly, your claim that Cam is the victim of some sort of
  official abuse of office is almost as silly as your claim that you
  didn't know they were going to use that tyre-iron to commit a
  felony. It don't wash. You've admitted yourself that everyone
  has only been doing their job, and you can't point to anything
  that suggests that they have been violating rules, laws, or even
  ethical canons. I can't find any independently, and will point
  to Hurlbert's disclosures in the Kobe case as a case for com-
  parison.
  It sucks for Cam that he can't afford a P.R. firm like Kobe
  or the Ramsays (they haven't even been charged, but every-
  one seems to believe they did it) -- but in America, you get
  about as much justice as you can afford. It didn't seem to
  bother you when my ox was getting gored, but now that the
  tables are turned, you're whining like a stuck pig. What a--
  er, um, surprise.
  
  Really, Ted. I don't have a horse in this race, other than to
  show you how it feels. And I gather that you don't like it too
  much. I didn't think you would....
• Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:22:00 GMT(16)
• Ken Smith wrote:
  Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> Ken Smith wrote:
  > I'll just comment on this bit:
  >> The timing is also suspicious. He files for visitation in October, and>> she suddenly "falls off" a cliff in November.
  > He filed for visitation in Feb. of '99 and it was granted in Oct. of> '99. The accident happened in Nov. of 2000. He had been seeing the> girl regularly for over a year.
  Correction: According to the Times, he filed for joint custody in October, 2000.
  Joint CUSTODY is something other than visitation.
  The Times got it right, which is all that matters But that's beside the point. One I think I made.
  
  Yes, the Times, unlike you, got this particular point correct. He asked for
  JOINT CUSTODY after he had had VISITATION RIGHTS for fully a year. You must
  have been busy chasing Bob Larson when they taught this in law school, since
  you seem to be so confused about it. So it's time for a little refresher:
  
  VISITATION RIGHT - The right granted to a parent or other relative to
  visit a child on a specified basis.
  
  LEGAL CUSTODY - One of two types of child custody. A parent who has
  legal custody has the right to be involved in all the decision making
  typically involved with being a parent, such as religious upbringing,
  education and medical decisions. Legal custody can be either sole or
  joint.
  
  PHYSICAL CUSTODY - One of two types of child custody. A child lives
  mosr of the time with the parent who has physical custody of that
  child.
  
  So apparently what he was asking for was LEGAL CUSTODY.
  Most folks would say I'm a pretty nice guy.
  
  I would say that you're a pretty nice guy. Certainly an affable chap (at
  least in person).
  But when you try to injure me and my reputation as you have over the past few years,
  
  Ken, I have NOT tried to "injure" you. You've brought all that upon
  yourself.
  you shouldn't expect that your malice will not have consequences. And, if I were as flat-out vindictive as you,
  
  I'm anything BUT vindictive. I'm a very easy-going, forgiving person.
  I'm creative enough to find ways to make Cam's situation more precarious.
  
  Why? Because you know him and know what kind of person he is? (A word to
  the wise [which might very well exclude Ken Smith]: it would be advantageous
  for you to keep your mouth shut here.)
  That having been said, I'd say that Cam is facing the fight of his life, [...]
  
  This is true. However, I am going to say nothing more about his case here,
  because this is not the proper forum in which to try it.
  
  As for you, the only criticisms that I have had about you are about how you
  have gone about trying to remedy your problem. You have repeatedly shown
  poor judgement -- as you have about how you have responded to this case. You
  don't really know how this is going to finally shake out. And all the
  information that you have to work with is what was said in the media. Do
  you really think that you can make an informed judgement solely on this,
  especially given that you haven't heard the other side? Would you stake your
  reputation (such as it is) on it? If so, then this suggests that the
  Colorado Board of Law Examiners were correct when they asked you to submit to
  a psychological examination.
  
  Okay, so you think that this "request" really represents a "demand", and that
  they don't have a right to make such a demand. But who supports you in this
  assessment? Larry Smith? Too bad that Larry Smith has no influence with the
  Colorado Board of Law Examiners, or with Judge Nottingham in Denver Federal
  District Court.
  
  And you filed a very angry complaint in Denver Federal District Court naming
  virtually everyone in sight as defendants -- so who does that leave for you
  to have on your side to support you? Is it any surprise that you didn't get
  anywhere here? (And don't tell me about the law -- I have heard judges say
  in open court, "I don't care what you think the law says, if you don't like
  my decision, take it up on appeal".) And you didn't fare any better in the
  10th Circuit -- in fact the justices gave you quite a hiding in their
  published finding.
  
  You were told that the ONLY proper place for your appeal was to the Supreme
  Court of the U.S., but instead you have filed some sort of action in lower
  state court. You mentioned "mandamus" in a previous message, so presumably
  you are asking for a writ of mandamus for the lower court to direct the state
  Supreme Court to do one thing or another. But let's be real here. (I know
  that for you, this must be very hard, but do please try.) What lower state
  court judge in his right mind is going to order the state Supreme Court
  around? Short answer: it ain't gonna happen, bucko.
  
  Now, you're already a laughingstock here, so please, go seek some serious
  help. And don't try to tell me what kind of man my brother-in-law is -- I
  already know him quite well. He's the sort of guy who not only would, but
  for me already has [figuratively AND literally] given me the shirt off his
  back and food off his plate. You may try to besmirch him here, but in the
  end you will find that you have only (further) besmirched yourself.
  --
  Theodore A. Kaldis
  kaldis@lawknowledge.org.worldnet.att.net
• Leave a Comment Now.

Additional Legal Subjects Open Questions

"Jackson" <Jack@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2kiscfF2n0oaU1@uni-berlin.de... or just ignore it Nice irony there -- doing just what you're accusing me of. kind of like how you never admitted that you were wrong... But on the old point -- yes, I admit there's more to Terry......

Hi All, I own and live on an old (30+ years), small trailer part in North Florida. Periodically, the legislature tacks adds more regulation and requirements - usually thru the health dept. In the past they have demanded a full plat style map of the property showing all roads, utilities, trailers,......

Two items from Modern Healthcare. "Agreement may be near on large Medicaid cuts A budget plan that cuts roughly $10 billion from Medicaid spending over five years will probably succeed and an agreement could be reached this week, several sources... http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archiv...

Sid9 wrote: U.S. Raises Alert in Baghdad's Green Zone By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 7, 2004 Filed at 9:52 a.m. ET BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Two American soldiers were killed and two others were wounded in separate attacks involving roadside bombs, U.S. officials said Thursday, and 20......

Policewoman shot brother in row over butter A Tennessee police woman says she accidentally shot her brother in an argument over a tub of butter. State trooper Angelinette Crawford lost her temper after her brother, Jaison Bilbrew, 19, lent the butter to a neighbour. She told her brother that it......

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2386795,00.html-- Chas 'It's Fighting, not Folkdancing!' http://65.109.93.36/index.htm http://www.kuntaosilat.net http://www.kuntaosilat.com/silatknifefighting.htm...

http://roundtable.truck.net/viewtopic.php?p=356609&highlight=&sid=a18de92105 7c43299d6e01018b020ee0#356609 lost4evermore Senior member Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:53 am Post subject: The city settled to pay the woman $145,000 and nothing was done about the officers improper handling of the......

More Brutality Allegations Lodged Vs. NOPD By MARY FOSTER, Associated Press Writer Update April 05, 2006 NEW ORLEANS (AP) - New Orleans' police department, its image already suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, is investigating new allegations of brutality: claims that three white......

Meanwhile, in an attempt to end guerrilla attacks on its supply lines, the US has banned civilian traffic on some of Iraq's most-used highways and declared them free-fire zones: all vehicles not belonging to the US military will be fired upon, according to American military command. The decision......

Meanwhile, in an attempt to end guerrilla attacks on its supply lines, the US has banned civilian traffic on some of Iraq's most-used highways and declared them free-fire zones: all vehicles not belonging to the US military will be fired upon, according to American military command. The decision......

Some questions maybe you're interest in...

[Government & Administrative Law] What is the name of your state? CA CA Penal Code reads as follows: 637.4. (a) No state or local governmental agency involved in the investigation or prosecution of crimes, or any employee thereof, shall require or request any complaining witness, in a case involving the use of force,.........

[Wills & Trusts] What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania A family friend named both my brother and I in his will. I was informed by my father that the will was just put in probate. The lawyer claims to have notified all beneficiaries, but the two of us were never notified. Our family friends nephew was the.........

[Wills & Trusts] my father passed away and there is no will. his wife (my stepmom) of 15 years is evasive. what is the siblings of the deceased entitled to? (In CA)......

[Immigration Law] ironporer wrote: Somehow this way seems much better than a group of 11 jurists Hate to pick a nit however that would be 12... ;-) who will never see the boy again sentencing him to a clean, sanitary, antiseptic lethal injection....akin to "putting to sleep" a sick favorite dog. Perhaps.........

[BANKRUPTCY & CONSUMER CREDIT] Can anyone help? I worked in a commision based role for 16 months. There was no employment contract in place. My boss sent me 3000 twice from his personal account as a gift between Jan 09 to April 09. I left the company 4 weeks ago and he has now filed a Statutory Demand under section 268(1)(a).........

[Wills & Trusts] An elderly aunt of mine just died intestate in Miami Beach, FL. I am one of three next of kin (nephews) and am shown as the informant on the death certificate. In going through the deceased's personal effects, I dicovered the key to her safe deposit box in a Miami bank. The bank manager has.........

[BANKRUPTCY & CONSUMER CREDIT] There are two ways to receive notices from the Court; on paper or electronically. Paper is slowest by far as notices are printed and mailed from Virginia; it can take four or five days (and sometimes longer) for you to receive notice by mail. The Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (EBN) program.........

[CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE] Can you plese tell me the statue of limitations on taking funds from a private company. My sister has been accussed of taking 250,000 from 11/93 to 6/01. No charges have been filed. Thank you......

[Employment & Labor Law] What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA So. I was never fired by my boss or let go. But when I went to clean out my desk his wife (who is a co-owner but never actually works there) said I was not welcome. I was confused. When I prompted him(my boss) about this he said he would speak.........

[BANKRUPTCY & CONSUMER CREDIT] CA. How to draw up QDRO(Qualified Domestic Relations Order)? I Have been unemployed for six months. I need the money to survive. My ex. will not cooperate. At her company, she has money sitting in TRIP(Taxpayers Retirement Investment Plan or 401K) and profit sharing plan. She refuses to give me.........