The Cameron Brown Case - An Inside Look
This comment section is (finally) closed. Please go to the front page for a new entry. http://cameronbrowncase.blogspot.com/
Ken, what does it mean when the jurors eyes open up real wide and they start taking notes like crazy?
Whatever. Ted can speak to it if he choses to do so. He's been very busy.
It was a very good day for Pat Harris and the rest of us. Sprocket wasn't there. She really needs to pay attention because we don't want her to miss the good stuff. Oh well, if she does you will just have to wait. Can't you all take up some sort of collection to encourage her? She missed Dr. Ophoven today. There were some other disclosures made that I would have given money for a chance to see her response.
CI: Your friends on the other blog certainly must know how to run an ip. Don't come here with that kind of garbage, Ken. I agree, it was obviously not you who wrote that, but it was also no one from here.
Knowing Ted, I rather doubt that. It was in the morning, before court started, by your reckoning. It could have been sent from a local Starbucks, for all I know. I rather doubt that Loretta and CG are experts, and I was even able to spoof The Oafish One (he had me posting from Tahiti, and I really, really, really, really would have liked him to have been right 
). That he could do it and not be detected by amateurs is not that unlikely, and it is in keeping with the experience they have had over there. Motive, method, opportunity: Ted is the prime suspect.
It was not a full day, btw. Court didn't start until 11 because of the Judge's schedule.
Day 2, actually. Very well, thanks. I don't mean to cut you short, but we are working on something and will be back soon. I'm Sorry I didn't get to you sooner.
How did Day 1 of defense go? Was Sprocket in attendance?
Out of curiosity, when was it posted?
Oh, bs. Your friends on the other blog certainly must know how to run an ip. Don't come here with that kind of garbage, Ken. I agree, it was obviously not you who wrote that, but it was also no one from here. If it's not legit, delete it. If it is, deal with it.
From the other blog:
ken said...
Throughout the case I have often wondered if this was just a case of recklessness and not an intentional act by Mr. Brown? I am thinking more than ever that the factual evidence shown does not Mr. Brown is guilty. It has to be in favor or Mr. Harris to show this, and all signs appear Mr. Brown will walk in September 2009.
I know many of you are wondering why I am now changing my tone a bit, but it is a gut instinct that I have today.
Thoughts?
ken said...My thoughts? Fraud. Kaldis. Kaldis. Fraud. No surprise.
I don't know who this "ken" is, but it certainly isn't yours truly (the one who usually posts here). Is it another Kook Kaldis Klone?
As far as I can see, the State has made a powerful circumstantial case against Cam: one that would be more than enough to justify a conviction on Murder One.
As far as Cam's recklessness is concerned, it is entirely possible that the jury could convict on a depraved heart theory, which still gives him Murder Two.
Third, he could be convicted on manslaughter charges due to his recklessness, which would result in his walking, as he has spent some six years in the can.
My views haven't changed. I still think this is going to be a very close case, and if Cam is acquitted, it will be due to the standard of reasonable doubt.
When this is over, Ken, I will do that. I sincerely wish you success in whatever efforts you are making to insist on integrity and accountability in the courts and our criminal justice system. I just got an 85 page report that you might find interesting. I'll pass it along to you later, if it applies to what you are working on.
CI: What are you working on?
Slide on over to KnowYourCOurts.com every once in a while and find out. I'm working on a story right now, and I'm close to deadline.
CI: As for the second part? That's fair, although I have a different "take" on it. So what else? Oh. I know. You don't like that he got bent out of shape about something. Since you don't really know the full story there, I guess you are entitled to whatever conclusion you might draw. Anything else?
I'm curious as to how you would (a) have the full story and (b) understand the significance of the events in the courtroom, given that (c) Ted and Patty are the only members of Team Cam known to regularly inhabit (in Ted's case, "infest") the courthouse.
Either what I said went zipping on past you or I failed miserably at communicating my point, but I have no clue what the first line of your response meant. I must have read it three times. I give.
As for the second part? That's fair, although I have a different "take" on it. So what else? Oh. I know. You don't like that he got bent out of shape about something. Since you don't really know the full story there, I guess you are entitled to whatever conclusion you might draw. Anything else?
In the meanwhile, have you made any progress with your website group? What are you working on?
CI: Perhaps you might see blunders because of your blinders. I'll give Pat another gold star for that one!
And where would you have had such recent contact? Like, in the past few hours?!?
Perhaps you don't see blunders because of yours. I don't like the idea of giving Hum the right to tell the jury that Harris said that Cam is "a planner," for instance. Given what the State has laid down to this point, that is a fairly dangerous phrase. I would have liked him to be an impetuous free-spirit who really did take Lauren to IP because she wanted to go. That is what Ted has been selling for years....
Perhaps you might see blunders because of your blinders. I'll give Pat another gold star for that one! 
CI: Condescending attitudes get very old very quickly.
Team Cam's have essentially fossilized.
CI: Suddenly Mark is the star-pitcher and Pat is a farmhand?
It's all relative. While Ann Coulter thinks he's a third-rate hack (and Ted would never argue with Annthrax), he does appear to a step up in weight class from Pat Harris, based on Sprocket's detailed reports. Again, Harris didn't have good control over Team Cam, and made some blunders I would have liked not to have seen.
CI: You are all over the map and no one cares.
You expect that sort of lie from Team Cam ... and you get it.
Suddenly Mark is the star-pitcher and Pat is a farmhand? Give it up, Ken. You are all over the map and no one cares. Condescending attitudes get very old very quickly.
I've looked around, Ken, and haven't seen Mark here for a while now. Is that the best you can do?
Wow. "...manipulative and completely unrealistic in the real world" like the idea of gaining full custody of a 4-yr old girl from her mother?
As CI/Jean likes to say, Sheesh!!
Loretta: Whoever is in charge of noting this child's birthday should be fired.
Patty: Her name is, er, Lauren, remember? Oh, that's right. You only apply those standards when it suits you. Nevermind that the standards you are applying are manipulative and completely unrealistic in the real world.
She's being sarcastic. All we know is what has been testified to, and what we see of your conduct. Sarah felt the loss profoundly. Cam was out surfing later that week, and "you can't let something like that ruin your life, right?" You treated her as an object you wanted to possess, and that may well have been her epitaph. You'll understand if I'm not overly impressed.
CI: The name thing is a red herring which tries to imply that certain people do not care enough to use a name.
Geragos avoided it consciously -- to dehumanize Lauren.
Ken: Your belief is that certain people are better than you,
Ted: Nope. But when Judge Edward Nottingham, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless, the Colorado State Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, all fail to find adequate merit in your complaint, well then, I HAVE to believe that they must be on to something
....because you need that answer to be true to sustain your prejudicial position. It keeps you from actually having to look at the evidence. But you don't need to look, because you have admitted the fact that matters:
Ted: Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct himIf you have the guns, you don't have to be bound by such niceties as the rule of law. Saddam Hussein wasn't. Kim Jong-Il isn't. We know what this is all about: a lawless caste acting in an objectively criminal manner. If you don't find it objectionable in my case, why should anyone give a shit about your baby-killin' brudder-in-law?
Ken: Precisely where am I wrong,
Ted: Trying to sue the judicial establishment.
Ken: and why?
Ted: They have the guns. You don't.
Patty: As though you don't know this, Cam has never seen his "personal" blog. Remember? He's been in jail for six years. It's a shame how you distort things in an effort to "sell" a load of crap, Ken. Are you incapable of being honest?
Whoever put that blog together is the one making the admission corroborating the admission that Patty is fat and stupid, and otherwise too damn homely to make it onto Cam's blog. The evidence is what it is. I'm not the one in control of that blog.
You know that if Sarah or either of the Baywatch Babes were in her position, there would be at least one pic, as it would plainly serve Cam's interests.
CI: We are the people fighting for Cam's freedom
I am not persuaded that Cam deserves to be free. You certainly have not proven his innocence; it is established beyond cavil that his pre-trial incarceration was lawful, although my attitude toward the quantum of evidence you need to prevent flight is that it should be a higher one.
As I have said over and over again, I am content to leave Cam's fate to the jury. As long as he receives a constitutionally adequate trial -- I am not aware of any credible evidence presented to show that he did not receive one three years ago -- I have no reason to complain.
CI: yet you are the one who appears frazzled and desperate.
I am? The prosecution's circumstantial case is a powerful one. It is certainly sufficient for a jury to convict ... but this is California, where O.J. and Robert Blake walked and Phil Spector nearly did. I have always maintained that this case would be close, and I have seen nothing that would dissuade me from that assessment.
CI:Do you even realize how disjointed your theories are? Give it a rest.
When it comes to "disjointed theories," everyone else pales in comparison to The Oafish One. Are there even any Angelinos left whom Team Cam hasn't accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself?
The State has amassed a coherent case: Patty the Fat, Stupid and Barren Baby-Stealer, Cam's sugar mama, wanted Lauren for herself. We know the voodoo she do, and that it had nothing to do with scrapbooking: You scrapbook Lauren, but certainly not Sarah. Cam had about three nickels to rub together, and Patty basically owned him. Cam had to turn in his life of Baywatch Babes and bohemian freedom for a dowdy mother-figure, and it was all because of Lauren: the kid he didn't want. As he told his friends, he had a low opinion of Patty, and would have thrown her away in a heartbeat if he could have. They've sold motive, method, and opportunity. The State has carried its burden with gracious plenty to spare.
Pat Harris' job is a lot easier: All he has to do is sell doubt. Can he do it? Personally, I think so, although he has made several egregious blunders that would make a Trial Tactics prof cringe. As much as Ann Coulter dumped on Geragos, there is definitely a fall-off between the star pitcher and the farmhand.
Abuse comes up because Patti wants "the child"Abuse came up because of the recurring marks and bruises on Lauren's body, marks and bruises that disappeared as soon as they were they were brought to the attention of the mediator (in June 2000) and appeared again when Lauren went to England (in October 2000).
Ted, you know how talk about Ken's legal issues gives me indigestion. Enough, already.
The name thing is a red herring which tries to imply that certain people do not care enough to use a name. It's just so much rhetoric. "My daughter", "this little munchkin", "she", "Lauren", "this beautiful child" or "this child" are all references to a specific individual and most parents refer to their children in similar ways. Especially when we talk to strangers about our children, we are far more likely to refer to them as "my daughter", etc. Distractions like this are used to keep us away from the real issues, or as an excuse to create new ones. It's a ploy. Nothing more. Even politicians like Barbara Boxer attempt that kind of ploy by complaining about being called "ma'am" instead of "senator", as though ma'am is somehow disrespectful. Any honest parent will acknowledge that they refer to their own children without using their formal name. The ploy is hypocritical, at best.
Ken Smith wrote:
Your belief is that certain people are better than you,Nope. But when Judge Edward Nottingham, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless, the Colorado State Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, all fail to find adequate merit in your complaint, well then, I HAVE to believe that they must be on to something.
"Loretta: Whoever is in charge of noting this child's birthday should be fired."
Her name is, er, Lauren, remember? Oh, that's right. You only apply those standards when it suits you. Nevermind that the standards you are applying are manipulative and completely unrealistic in the real world.
Anonymouster wrote:
As though you don't know this, Cam has never seen his "personal" blog. Remember? He's been in jail for six years. It's a shame how you distort things in an effort to "sell" a load of crap, Ken. Are you incapable of being honest?I believe that that was one of the questions that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was trying to resolve.
As though you don't know this, Cam has never seen his "personal" blog. Remember? He's been in jail for six years. It's a shame how you distort things in an effort to "sell" a load of crap, Ken. Are you incapable of being honest?
Do you even realize how disjointed your theories are? Give it a rest.
d.e.s.p.e.r.a.t.e
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Loretta: Whoever is in charge of noting this child's birthday should be fired.
Ted: YOU are in charge of noting Lauren's birthdays
....because obviously, no one in Team Cam gave a shit about Lauren -- least of all, Cam.
KC: Abuse comes up because Patti wants "the child", er, Lauren; they have to say something- how could custody even come up otherwise? And it does appear that Patti was pushing him in that direction.
It was the only chance that Baby-Stealer could have had, so they had to make it up -- par for the course in family court. Did Patty do the voodoo on Cam by mistake?
On second thought, maybe you should consider something stronger than aspirin.
Ken: You are making claims you can't back up.
Ted: You've done that before in spades.
What claims, specifically, haven't I backed up ... and precisely how does a judicial opinion by a personal friend of two of the defendants prove your claim to the contrary?
If Mark Arnold were an old college chum of Craig Hum, you would be whining so loud that the USGS' earthquake monitors could record it.
Take a breath and a few aspirins, Ken. We are the people fighting for Cam's freedom, yet you are the one who appears frazzled and desperate. Relax.
CI: Probably no more despicable or libelous than the claims made against her father
Claims made by his friends, it should be noted for the record. The "fat and stupid" comment is inherently believable, because Patty's photo is nowhere to be found on "Cam's" personal blog (where you would expect the love of his life to be found; Patty was obviously just a sugar mama). The baby-stealer comment is engendered and corroborated by a variety of sources. Lauren was simply "the child" to Patty (how clinical!). That we are informed that Cam was "a planner" who runs away from his problems is an observation of his attorney.
That Team Cam lies a lot is established beyond cavil, thanx to Sprocket. That you can't even remember her birthday shows just how much you care.....
Ken: You two sound like fools and liars to the rest of us
Ted: I don't know what you're crowing about. Several courts have said (in not so many words) that you are a fool.
Have they, Ted? After all, Judge Mark Arnold was ALWAYS right, wasn't he?
Your belief is that certain people are better than you, and you should always defer to them like a good sheep. Well, Jeff Leslie and Wilson Hayes and Craig Hum and Mark Arnold are "better" than you and that "fat and stupid" (her husband's words, testified to under oath) twin sister of yours, and you should defer.
You Christians are craven and servile cowards. Us Deists maintain that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights. We will stand, even as you kneel. As Samuel Adams (who you only drink) put it, "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
You and that baby-stealin' sister of yours are a disgrace to our species-- that is, if you two even qualify as belonging to it.
Ted: I'm sure that there are MANY members of the Colorado judicial establishment who would agree with me on that.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." -- Schopenhauer
Loretta: My statement stands - there is no court record of abuse.
Kook Kaldis: Don't be so sure about that.
If it comes from you, it is almost certainly a lie or at best, a half-truth. Everyone here has dealt with you long enough to know that.
Ken: the voodoo kit, the "come to mommy" remark
Patty (Anonymous): Are blatant perjury!
Prove it, Patty! Better yet, prove it in front of the jury.
Three witnesses with no reason to lie corroborated the same basic claim under oath. Why should I believe you over them? And why shouldn't the jury believe them, given that there is no testimony to refute it?
The rape discussion is closed, in case you missed my post. Thanks.
Loretta said:
My statement stands - there is no court record of abuse.Don't be so sure about that.
Ronni wrote:
No definition I have found says anything about husbands being exempt.So what is the historical foundation of the idea of marital rape? And how far back does the idea go?
YOU are the one attempting to redefine the word.Nope. The feminists did that back in the '70's. I am simply relying on the historical definition.
Probably no more despicable or libelous than the claims made against her father, but since I didn't make the statement, I can't speak to it. We don't like the fact that anything of this nature is here without transcripts to support it. I intend to discard it because as it stands, it is just inflammatory and that's not our intent. Support for the statement will have to come from the transcripts.
There is no testimony in this trial that "corroborates abuse" and there is no court record in the history of this child that indicates she was abused by her mother. There may have been questions in cross to someone in an agency who appeared who was asked about Lauren's injuries, etc., and Sprocket has that testimony.
Apparently, whoever is making this claim did not read Sprocket's blog for that day.
My statement stands - there is no court record of abuse. There may be some allegations that were made and investigated that later were dropped out of lack of evidence, and that does not make it into family court. In fact, unless there were a pattern of abuse claims over a period of time, the investigation goes into a CLOSED file and cannot be used for evidence of anything.
I don't see what else could possibly enter this trial without objection from Hum and sustained by the Judge. No way. If there is, I'd like to see it. I think "anony" or Patty is parsing words.
Lauren was not abused in any way by her mother, and it is despicable and libelous to claim otherwise.
California law is specific to 1) rape by someone other than a spouse, and 2) rape by a spouse. Now drop it. As I said, the context and original content of this argument have more than likely been redefined over the years and I do not want it carried on here.
Oh, I see...California is still in the Dark Ages...is it still illegal to drive a carriage more than 5 mph on main street while eating an ice cream cone on Sunday?
I can't find a husband exemption in the Texas Penal Codes, which is where I live.
I don't know where this argument began, but I know it's clear to all of us that current day law provides for penalties against a spouse for rape under specific circumstances. Drop it. Like everything else, the context is lost after years of argument, and I don't want it carried on here.
Rape (noun)
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
http://dictionary.reference.com/...com/browse/
rape
No definition I have found says anything about husbands being exempt.
YOU are the one attempting to redefine the word.
Ronni wrote:
A date-rapist who slips a girl a mickey so she doesn't remember what happened is as guilty of rape as a person who forces a stranger grabbed off the street,I agree.
and a husband who coerces his wife is as guilty as either of them.Of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, not of rape.
A marriage license is not a coupon for sex on demand.Pardon me, did I miss a claim where someone said that it was?
the voodoo kit, the "come to mommy" remarkAre blatant perjury!
Ronni wrote:
I have to interject here that rape is rape,Then quit trying to redefine it.
Ken Smith wrote:
The Kook Kaldis Klan [...]Ken Smith is the biggest kook here. I'm sure that there are MANY members of the Colorado judicial establishment who would agree with me on that.
Loretta wrote:
Whoever is in charge of noting this child's birthday should be fired.YOU are in charge of noting Lauren's birthdays.
Ken Smith wrote:
You are making claims you can't back up.You've done that before in spades. See: http://knowyourcourts.com/Smith/ ...ofDismissal.pdf
I certainly got some good laughs out of it.
Ken Smith wrote:
You two sound like fools and liars to the rest of usI don't know what you're crowing about. Several courts have said (in not so many words) that you are a fool. People who live in glass houses ...
Straight from Alinsky? Pffffttttt.
First, tell whoever Anon is that they are wrong. Their question has not been deleted. Second, you can't point to anything I have said that can't be backed up. This entire barage was more than likely brought about by the fact that they HAVE already and undeniably been proven. Since it is very obvious that you are only here to throw around ad hom attacks, don't expect us to participate.
Have fun, kiddies!
Ted said
To say that an abusive husband who forces his wife to have sex with him when she doesn't want to is guilty of rape is to diminish the seriousness of genuine cases of rape, where one defiles a woman to whom he is a complete stranger. You moron.
I have to interject here that rape is rape, and forcing somebody to have intercourse against that person's will is rape, no matter the relationship between the rapist and the victim.
A date-rapist who slips a girl a mickey so she doesn't remember what happened is as guilty of rape as a person who forces a stranger grabbed off the street, and a husband who coerces his wife is as guilty as either of them. A marriage license is not a coupon for sex on demand.
Loretta: Otherwise, it's pointless to argue her point of view. The jury will never hear it and cannot act on it.
It is pointless to point that obvious little fact out. The Kook Kaldis Klan insists upon their view of the world, and insists that everyone else should unquestioningly accept it as fact.
Well, folks, you missed another birthday. Whoever is in charge of noting this child's birthday should be fired. Oh, and don't give me the blather about it being a "private grieving matter" and all that hoohaa. Please. Admit it, you don't care about Lauren, never did. It's painfullly obvious.
Anonymous: The purpose for that note was as a negotiation ploy. After negotiating change orders with construction contractors for years, she believed that Cam should ask for the maximum possible, in hopes of ending up where he wanted to be. But when it is taken out of context, and Patty's frame of mind is not taken into account, it is misleading.
How would you know Patty's frame of mind? And how could we trust any Kaldis to tell the truth?
Again, Jon Hans' testimony, the voodoo kit, the "come to mommy" remark -- it all adds up, and expecting a Kaldis to lie is like expecting a fish to swim.
CI: I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me because I know of very few sources of unbiased information regarding Cam Brown, and many regarding the rights of fathers. The internet is a great source of good information, but it's just as likely to give you a lot of wrong information. The key seems to be the ability to use it with care and apply some common sense.
But when you guys make absurd accusations and wild claims without backing them up, you squeal like stuck pigs when the rest of us dismiss them as ridiculous.
CI: Well, excuse my french, but it pretty much fucked their case up! LOL!
Not from the reports we've received to this point.
CI: And you have to admit, we were up against people hell-bent on passing out the bs. John and Ken, you, CG, Usenet, Shannon Farren and Denise Nix; people who made wild accusations and baseless assumptions.
When it comes to "wild accusations and baseless assumptions," everyone else pales in comparison to The Oafish One. Are there any Angelinos left whom Team Cam hasn't accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself?
CI: And (more than) one of the people who use to post here tried at one time to post on your site and was chastised and deleted because she had a different viewpoint.
Anonymous (from the other blog): My question to Team Cam about which witness testified to abuse that Sprocket missed....disappeared.
Not surprising.
The administrators of this site have repeatedly engaged in viewpoint-based censorship, and even you know it, CI. STFU, you flaming hypocrite!
Loretta: If your case was so good, it would have been over 6 years ago. He'd be walking free. No way can anyone be blamed for his being in jail except YOU and those of you who are advising him - his lawyers, his wife, whoever.
The best indication of how good their case is is in how their attorneys have handled it. They knew that the State had a good case, which is why they played for every marginal advantage, even if it meant six years in the cage for Camster.
CI: Oh, I don't know, Loretta. I said what I meant and meant what I said. That it didn't qualify to you as being responsive matters little.
You are making claims you can't back up. Claims which are inherently suspect due to their nature. And you expect us to simply take your word for it?
CI: We would have liked this site to be a place open to discussion without the mean-spirited and ugly attacks. Ken did his best to prevent that kind of exchange and treated this site like his own personal litter box.
Pointing out that you two(?) are compulsive liars and shameless hypocrites is unfair?
Anonymous (Patty): Jon Hans sounded like a fool, since he admitted he turned against Cam because of what he read online; and he over looked his own experience to accept it. And, Dave Bannister sounded like a liar.
You two sound like fools and liars to the rest of us. I'm inclined to believe Jon Hans because his testimony is corroborated.
Oh, I don't know, Loretta. I said what I meant and meant what I said. That it didn't qualify to you as being responsive matters little. After all, you are not conducting a trial here and I am not held to answer at your whim. You are exactly right in what you said earlier. There is a trial going on and how it is handled is up to Cam and his attorney. I guess you will just have to sit back and wait a couple of more days to see what may or may not happen. Believe it or not, there is a witness list to get through. Let's just hope Sprocket shows up so you will know what happened.
"There is other testimony that corroborates that there was abuse, but Sprocket wasn't there, so you missed it."
Name the witness and detail the testimony.
I think this sounds like a broken record, and as usual, you are non-responsive, CI. You fail to answer the questions asked, you fail to address the issue of Patty taking the stand, you claim an unfair trial and yet do not blame Mark Geragos, and then you whine about Cam being in jail for 6 years.
He waived his speedy trial rights.
If your case was so good, it would have been over 6 years ago. He'd be walking free. No way can anyone be blamed for his being in jail except YOU and those of you who are advising him - his lawyers, his wife, whoever.
I don't "want him on the stand as though it were yesteryear" yet everyone else involved in this case has to take the stand as though it were "yesteryear." They all have to testify to their recollections and justify their statements. Why not Cam? Is he retarded? Has he been dropped on his head? Can't he speak? Can't he recall his story?
You make no sense, as usual.
In all honesty, I can't imagine that you can really be concerned about the good anything might do us. In the very unlikely event you are, however, thanks.
Loretta said:
You've been doing that for the past 3 years. What good has it done you? What are you going to do if Cam is convicted? Are you going to start another website like the Peterson family and have Patty post Cam's blogs online and raise money for his appeal?Well, excuse my french, but it pretty much fucked their case up! LOL!
And you have to admit, we were up against people hell-bent on passing out the bs. John and Ken, you, CG, Usenet, Shannon Farren and Denise Nix; people who made wild accusations and baseless assumptions. Cam didn't have a fair trial the first time around. Judge Pastor seems like he is doing his best to uphold the law and be fair. That is all we ever asked for. Pat is dedicated to this effort. Cam was never even afforded the opportunity to talk to Sarah, even though he tried to and he wanted to. Six years, Loretta. He's been in that rat hole for six long years. He's been deprived of any chance to speak to friends about what happened, and he was very often prevented from seeing his own attorneys. He's been threatened with every kind of abuse you can imagine, and held to account for phony knife charges among other things, and you want him on the stand as though it were yesteryear. It's not up to any of us. Pat Harris and Cam will make that decision.
Loretta said
You cannot have Jon Hans's opinions that you claim he gained from reading things on the internet be nonsense and then claim that Patty's internet investigation was valid.I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me because I know of very few sources of unbiased information regarding Cam Brown, and many regarding the rights of fathers. The internet is a great source of good information, but it's just as likely to give you a lot of wrong information. The key seems to be the ability to use it with care and apply some common sense. Or, when unsure, seek additional information or advice. I personally enjoy reading some of the well-thought-out and articulate debates about issues - especially when people are respectful of others and voice their various opinions without being treated like victims of Saul Alinsky's attack brigade. We would have liked this site to be a place open to discussion without the mean-spirited and ugly attacks. Ken did his best to prevent that kind of exchange and treated this site like his own personal litter box. And (more than) one of the people who use to post here tried at one time to post on your site and was chastised and deleted because she had a different viewpoint. Yet, Loretta, you are posting here. Funny, that.
CI writes:
One day we will sit down and make a detailed list of all of the claimed allegations that were actually disproven by the evidence...You've been doing that for the past 3 years. What good has it done you? What are you going to do if Cam is convicted? Are you going to start another website like the Peterson family and have Patty post Cam's blogs online and raise money for his appeal?
You are in the middle of a trial right now - put Cam and Patty on the stand! Let them tell their sides of the story. Let them defend themselves against all these alleged lies and misrepresentations. If you don't do that, who have you to blame but yourselves?
With regard to allegations not being used in court. Hmmmm. Isn't that what this is all about? This case has been full of allegations during testimony that had no basis in fact, to include things like supposed rocks! You know that Hum pranced around crowing about the fact that Cam didn't think enough about Lauren to even attend her services, and this was proven to be a lie in Sarah's own words! Yes, Sarah's own words right after she also claimed that Cam didn't care enough about her to attend the funeral. For God's sake, they begged her to allow them to attend!
One day we will sit down and make a detailed list of all of the claimed allegations that were actually disproven by the evidence. I don't know about others here, but I am offended by the behavior of the investigators and the prosecution. Their behavior only tarnishes an already fragile system of justice, and I find it repulsive and inexcuseable. I think we are all advocates of the victims of crime, but we have to be able to put our faith and confidence in our justice system! It is absolutely NOT okay when they lie, distort and deliberately mislead. There appears to be a long history on Usenet about how things that were later disproven were used to reach outrageously wrong conclusions about this case. And there were many who have apparently been swayed by the bs.
Incidentally, it's not my point of view, it's the law. Any competent family law expert would have advised Cam and Patty that their pursuit of full custody at that time was a lost cause. Did they talk to a lawyer, and did the lawyer say, Sure Go For It! Or did Patty just investigate this issue online? You cannot have Jon Hans's opinions that you claim he gained from reading things on the internet be nonsense and then claim that Patty's internet investigation was valid.
Ok, let's for the sake of argument concede that Patty was acting on bad advice, things she read on dad-advocacy forums (of which there are ample online), or out of some sort of negotiating bid, as if Lauren was a piece of real estate. Fine.
Put her on the stand and have her explain how and why she would pursue full custody of this child, which is literally tantamount to taking the child from her mother and her mother having her alternate weekends or greatly reduced visitation.
Otherwise, it's pointless to argue her point of view. The jury will never hear it and cannot act on it.
Just a quick question for Loretta. How many years did you deal with custody issues? You don't need to answer that, but I'm wondering how long it takes to become aware of how to deal with various issues and how long it takes before one might consider themselves an "expert"? Is it possible that you are projecting based too much on your own experiences dealing with the other half? I mean no disrespect, but your statement seems very presumptuous and intolerant of the fact that others may not agree with your point of view because they haven't shared your experiences. I'm not sure that some people would not ask advice of others and follow that advice, or shoot from the hip doing the best they can based on whatever information is available to them. It might be good to leave other options open when considering the motives or actions of people we don't know that much about. I think we all know from having friends and acquaintances that not everyone reaches the same conclusions, and it doesn't mean only one person is justified or right, and it certainly doesn't mean that people have bad motives.
You cannot use dismissed abuse allegations in court. It's not possible.We're not. There is other testimony that corroborates that there was abuse, but Sprocket wasn't there, so you missed it.
Patty would never have pursued (or asked Cam to pursue) full custody of a 4-yr old little girl, taking her from the only parent she knew 3/4 of her life, and her step-brother who loved her, and her step-dad who loved her, and her home and her school/daycare and her routine. No way is this in her best interest.It was never Patty's intention for Lauren to be taken away from her mother. If you had gotten to know Patty at all, you would know that she would never endorse taking a child's mother away from her. How damaging would that be? That is not Patty.
The purpose for that note was as a negotiation ploy. After negotiating change orders with construction contractors for years, she believed that Cam should ask for the maximum possible, in hopes of ending up where he wanted to be. But when it is taken out of context, and Patty's frame of mind is not taken into account, it is misleading.
Despite this Cam went to court and asked for what he wanted.
Ken Smith wrote:
[...] imho [...]NOTHING about you is "humble". (Otherwise, you would have submitted to the Colorado Bar Examiners' request with alacrity.)
Loretta lied:
Being around you is toxic for me. Thus, I must part.In both parts.
Ken Smith wrote:
I used it correctly.I disagree. You used the word "ravage" where one would properly use "ravish".
Remember your little buddy Gilligan's argument that one's wife could not be raped?While your statement here is not specific enough (his argument was that a HUSBAND could not rape his own wife), Doug was right. Historically, rape has been considered a VERY serious crime that carried draconian penalties -- in some cases even death (as the rapist was seen as having deprived a woman of something that can NEVER be restored to her).
In recent times, feminist prosecutors have in some instances sought to apply rape laws -- with the draconian penalties -- against abusive husbands where the charge should have been something more akin to wife-beating.
To say that an abusive husband who forces his wife to have sex with him when she doesn't want to is guilty of rape is to diminish the seriousness of genuine cases of rape, where one defiles a woman to whom he is a complete stranger. You moron.
testimony of those who were counted among Cam's good friends, as they necessarily jeopardize those friendships with their damaging testimony.They were outraged by the prosecution's side of the story. And since the media only told one side, they believed it was true. So they turned against Cam and testified against him.
Jon Hans sounded like a fool, since he admitted he turned against Cam because of what he read online; and he over looked his own experience to accept it. And, Dave Bannister sounded like a liar.
Ted: The cut-out photo of Lauren that matches one of the cut-up photos of Sarah pretty much establishes the scrap-booking claim. The prosecution gets beat up badly with this one, looking like liars trying to sustain an untenable "voodoo" suggestion.
No, they don't, Ted. As I understand it, based on my own academic study of the occult and the representations of a credible expert, it pretty much cinches it. But as I pointed out, this is imho cumulative evidence.
I have two issues here regarding the alleged abuse and Patty's determination for Cam to seek "full custody" of Lauren even though she was aware it was nearly impossible at the time.
Regarding the alleged abuse, anony claims: The court record supports that she had reason to be concerned for the child's well being."
I know for a fact that dismissed allegations of abuse (from CPS or whatever organization investigated) do not appear in court records. There was never a hearing about this. You cannot use dismissed abuse allegations in court. It's not possible. They are debunked issues. You cannot use alleged anything in court! I don't know what you are referring to, but there is no way anything involving Lauren's bruises on her shins (a ubiquitous injury for all children), or marks on her face that were investigated and dismissed will appear in court. Patty had NO LEGAL STANDING to go after custody of this child. Only her father had that, and he was obviously ambivalent about it at best. If you continue to make these claims, I would ask you to cite documents that indicate a hearing in court took place over specious abuse allegations. TIA.
Secondly,
"Patty's only concern was Lauren's well being."
If this is true, Patty would never have pursued (or asked Cam to pursue) full custody of a 4-yr old little girl, taking her from the only parent she knew 3/4 of her life, and her step-brother who loved her, and her step-dad who loved her, and her home and her school/daycare and her routine. No way is this in her best interest. Unless you can show me where Sarah had an axe in her hand and a heroin needle in her arm and a meth pipe in her mouth and her house was riddled with bullet holes and her husband was pimping out the neighborhood teenagers, then you are completely out to lunch. Cuz, that's what it would have taken for Patty and Cam to get custody.
No matter how much you hate someone's biological and custodial mother, you are not getting that child away from her unless you can show the child is in DANGER. The system does not take children of tender years from their mothers over minor financial differences or desire to lower child support. The idea was borne of desperation, spite, complete and utter ignorance, bad advice, or a combination of all. I am an unintentional expert on these things. I could cite chapter and verse.
Instead, Patty and Cam could have gone to a mediator, developed a shared parenting plan, enumerated all the ways the child could live partly with both parents, moved to near where Sarah and Lauren lived, kept her in the same school with the same routine, decorated a room for her in your new home, and gradually increased visitation to become about 50% of the time and voila! No child support obligation. You just share the medical expenses, alternate the tax exemption year to year, have a nice life.
THAT would have been in the best interest of the child AND solved the financial issues.
But, no. That's not what Patty did. And because she encouraged Cam to pursue FULL CUSTODY this belies her claim that she was only thinking of the best interest of the child. Malarky. Make that claim to someone who doesn't know better. Believe me, it's likely that at least half the current sitting jury has experience with child support, visitation and custody and will find it quite alarming that little note to Cam. Even more so than the stupid voodoo kit.
Ken Smith wrote:
While I don't believe the cops for a New York minute, and discount virtually anything that happens in family court, I do believe Jon Hans.Why shouldn't you? In one sense (and I'll let you guess which one), you two are birds of a feather.
"fat and stupid" Patty (again, Cam's words, as reported by an inherently reliable source)An inherently reliable source? This is the guy who insisted that he was "mistaken" when he told the police he met Lauren, and then he said that he felt Cam's interaction with Lauren (during the visit he was mistaken about) was "nothing". This is your idea about a reliable source, Ken?
Patty: And you are gullible!
I may be accused of a lot of things -- but gullibility is not among them. I am accustomed to the fact that Team Cam is comprised of deceitful liars, but I would never trust a cop as far as I could throw him. I do, however, trust in the testimony of those who were counted among Cam's good friends, as they necessarily jeopardize those friendships with their damaging testimony.
Ken Smith blathered:
The cut-up photos of Sarah pretty much ice it,The cut-out photo of Lauren that matches one of the cut-up photos of Sarah pretty much establishes the scrap-booking claim. The prosecution gets beat up badly with this one, looking like liars trying to sustain an untenable "voodoo" suggestion.
Seriously, I would urge you in the strongest of terms to have a conversation with Harris about what you should and should not be saying in public about the case.Point taken.
Ken Smith wrote:
If Patty had in fact been scrapbooking, there would have been a scrapbook.Guess what, Sherlock. There IS a scrapbook.
Seriously, I would urge you in the strongest of terms to have a conversation with Harris about what you should and should not be saying in public about the case.
While I don't believe the cops for a New York minute, and discount virtually anything that happens in family court, I do believe Jon Hans.
CI: What would a man know about this?
What I read. The Interwebs are an endless fountain of useless information. 
I've saved keepsakes from my travels, as most people do.
CI: Scrapbooking techniques are used for pictures placed in frames, books, cards, etc.
But ultimately, they are as a general rule placed in albums.
CI: That said, do you have any idea how many of the Brown's pictures were taken? Or are you willing to believe what you were told by the investigators or Craig Hum?
I'm less inclined to believe what Ted Kaldis tells me, as he has been proven to be a liar over and over and over again.
CI: Let's just say there is absolutely NO DOUBT the court and jurors were lied to about the existence (or lack of) photographs.
I'm not particularly inclined to believe you without knowing why you know what you claim to know, as all I know about is what was testified to in court. Cops will say pretty much anything they need to say to secure a conviction, and the Twins will say whatever is necessary here to exonerate Patty and Cam, but the Jon Hanses of the world are inherently more credible. Patty's intentions toward Lauren have been corroborated by a number of sources, and the 'voodoo kit' is but one piece of evidence that is arguably cumulative. I have found magick to be about as useless as prayer; whether Patty does is beside the point. All that is logically relevant was Patty's intentions, as they would ave a presumptive impact on Cam's actions. Did Cam feel pressure? That is Rule 401 evidence.
The scrapbooking argument is refuted by the cutout pictures of Sarah, as those who indulge that hobby tend to scrapbook the positives and eliminate the negatives. As I certainly wouldn't scrapbook photos of Bob Larson or Ted Kaldis, any suggestion that "fat and stupid" Patty (again, Cam's words, as reported by an inherently reliable source) would have scrapbooked any of Cam's super-hot ex-girlfriends.
Jeff Leslie has the integrity of a lizard.Don't insult the poor lizard, CI.
SHE'S A WITCH!!!Actually, Patty is a Christian. And you are gullible!
Ken said
If Patty had in fact been scrapbooking, there would have been a scrapbook. The absence of a scrapbook is therefore proof to the contrary. Anyone familiar with the occult would recognize the tell-tales, whereas Christian cops might not grasp their significance.What would a man know about this?
Scrapbooking techniques are used for pictures placed in frames, books, cards, etc. That said, do you have any idea how many of the Brown's pictures were taken? Or are you willing to believe what you were told by the investigators or Craig Hum? Let's just say there is absolutely NO DOUBT the court and jurors were lied to about the existence (or lack of) photographs.
Ken: Ted, I don't "get it" because it is objectively ridiculous.
Ted: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." [Prov 16:25]
Which justifies drinking of the Kool-Aid a la Heaven's Gate. Faith requires you to check your brain at the door.
Ted: (BTW, look up the meaning of "ravish".)
I used it correctly. Remember your little buddy Gilligan's argument that one's wife could not be raped? It would apply with equal force to the Aishas of the world.
Ken: Remember, the PSYIH vote
Ted: I have not voted in that idiotic poll.
Which means, given the way you parse words, that you have voted on multiple occasions.
Ted: The meaningful difference here is that it reflects the opinion of people who have NOT observed the proceedings of the current trial. But I have.
And you have a dog in the hunt, which means that we can't trust your impressions.
CI: Hum isn't the straightest shooter and Jeff Leslie has the integrity of a lizard.
Which makes them giants when compared to Ted Kaldis.
Ted: What is also manifestly obvious is that the "witchcraft" angle was, so to speak, nothing more than a "Hail Mary" pass -- a DESPERATION MOVE move by Hum, one that exposes how the case is really going for him.
Whenever you say that anything is "manifestly obvious," it is anything but. No one really believes that witchcraft works, any more than they do prayer. And just as certainly, he didn't want to have his case rely in any degree on the efficacy of witchcraft. Hum simply wanted to plant that idea in the jury's mind, as it reinforces the prosecution's assertion that Patty was a desperate baby-stealer in waiting. Patty tells Cam about all the great info she has found on the 'Net about baby-stealing in the morning, and Lauren ends up in the Pacific by afternoon. How convenient....
Ted: I DO know Cameron, however, and he's NOT a deceitful person.
We know you: Lies, half-truths, and deceit come as naturally to you as breathing. Your view of what Cam is or is not is colored in black Maybach.
CI: Jobeth, you seem to be a smart person.
She is. And she is seeing a great part of what the jury is seeing, and will put together. This is not a good thing for Team Cam, as the circumstantial case is quite strong.
CI: As much respect as I have for Sprocket and her good intentions, she is star-struck. Those are her heros on the stand and I can't help but notice how some of her comments seem to be providing some kind of justification for their behavior.
Which brings up the fact that you seem to think Ted's ass smells of rose petals. You aren't exactly a neutral observer; Sprocket is giving us present-sense impressions. I think we're all capable of sorting through the bullshit -- of which there is a profound overabundance produced by Team Cam.
Ken: SHE'S A WITCH!!! THEY'LL BURN YA!
Ted: The little snippet you posted from Sprocket, I'm sorry, just reveals her to be an ABJECT IDIOT where this trial is concerned. She doesn't get it AT ALL!
Let's see, now. Sprocket is (a) a veteran trial-watcher who (b) doesn't have a dog in the hunt and (c) writes down her present-sense impression (which are admissible in court as an exception to the rule against hearsay, btw). Ted Kaldis is (a) a proven sociopath who (b) has a Maybach-sized interest in the outcome of this case, and (c) is blissfully ignorant of the law and basic physics (who has alleged that there is a baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception to Newton's Laws). Who would any rational observer believe first?
If Patty had in fact been scrapbooking, there would have been a scrapbook. The absence of a scrapbook is therefore proof to the contrary. Anyone familiar with the occult would recognize the tell-tales, whereas Christian cops might not grasp their significance.
Ted: Then, upon "re-direct" testimony of Leslie, Hum asked him if he had found black candles and figurines in the suitcase -- of which there were NO photos presented (as there were of the suitcase, the cigar box, and the cut-up pictures of Sarah). "Yes", Leslie replied. "And did you find books on witchcraft in the house?", Hum then asked (to which the truthful answer would have been "No"). Pat Harris then forcefully objected, with the sound of exasperated annoyance in his voice. The judge sustained just as forcefully and with an equal amount of annoyance. And Hum had no more questions.
On re-cross, Pat Harris noted that it was obvious that the cut-up portions of the photos with Sarah's image had been saved, and had NOT been thrown away -- which Leslie was forced to acknowledge was true. And that was that for the day.
You say that "nobody can read a jury" but somehow, that you can read this jury. Ditto, the judge. I don't claim to have that sort of prescience, but if I am Pat Harris, and I know that the answer will be favorable to my client, I am not about to object. It's like that damn fool stunt where Harris got the notion that Cam is a "planner" before the jury.
The cut-up photos of Sarah pretty much ice it, as a scrapbooker saves what she wants to save and tosses what she wants to toss. It's beginning to look a lot like witchcraft....
Jobeth said
And when you are scrapbooking (not scrap "board"), the parts of the pictures you don't want? You throw those away, especially if they are pictures of your husband's ex-girlfriend.
Why? Some people might consider that disrespectful. I'd bet my life, however, that if there was evidence that portions of pictures of Sarah had been thrown away it would have been another issue in the case against Patty and Cam. You have no idea what reasons someone might have to keep the pictures. It's just as likely that they were initially being used and then put aside because of a second thought. It's just as likely that someone couldn't decide whether to use them or not. You really don't know but are very willing to jump to conclusions based on the suggestions of a prosecutor who has already been caught lying time and time again.
As much respect as I have for Sprocket and her good intentions, she is star-struck. Those are her heros on the stand and I can't help but notice how some of her comments seem to be providing some kind of justification for their behavior. There is no justification for deliberate attempts to mislead the court and the jury.
Just a couple more things, about the incident at the airport. First about what Cam heard or didn't hear. When the tape was unclear Leslie was asked about what was said, iirc. He provided the information about what was said. The transcripts Sprocket has were provided by the prosecutor's office. Why do you assume they are correct? And how can you assume what Cam did or didn't hear with his helmet on and motorcycle running?
The words used, iirc, were that Cam was being blocked from leaving. Does that mean that someone literally stood in front of his motorcycle and blocked him? Or does it mean that someone was standing so close to him that he was prevented from leaving? Have you ever considered what might have happened if Cam was so inconsiderate that he took off with Sarah standing close enough to have been burned (or somehow harmed) by the exhaust? Think about it. This was an unwelcomed encounter and Cam wanted to leave. Sarah may not have been blocking him with her body, but standing as close as she was in her persistence his statement that he felt blocked seems likely and appropriate. Most motorcyclists would expect people to move away so they can maneuver safely without causing harm to anyone.
After the gj was released to the media there was talk about how Cam did not even bother to attend the funeral. This led me to believe that it was in the gj. Obviously Hum must have given it to the media. Then, in the first trial he used it in Sarah's testimony.
I can't find it in the gj testimony either, Loretta. So I misspoke to that extent. It is very important to us that the accounts given are accurate, so thanks for pointing it out. It had definitely been brought out after Cam's arrest. It may have been in the media. The point remains that the prosecutor deliberately tried to lie about it. Big deal. He lied about a lot of things.
I will double check that, Loretta, with respect to the gj. I know that Geragos brought it out in cross, but Craig Hum and Sarah lied and that was my point. Since few people ever knew what came out in cross, we were challenged about this fact and many others. It's nice to see that it is one fact among many that is finally seeing the light of day! Thanks. I'm wondering why you didn't bother to clarify some of this long ago.
Not true, CI. There is no mention of the funeral in the GJ transcripts, and there is evidence that Cam and Patty wanted to attend the funeral and of the above quoted phone message and that Sarah did not want Cam to attend the funeral in the trial transcripts on June 27, in cross-examination by Geragos.
If you are going to misrepresent or misstate things, be sure to do it with someone who doesn't have the transcripts.
The gj and the jurors in the first trial were told in no uncertain terms that Cam did not even think enough about his daughter to attend her funeral! This was a blatant lie. There is much more to be said about this, but I won't bother with it right now. You have been very sadly misled about the truth of what happened. Detectives Smith and Leslie did everything they could to manipulate this situation and deny that Cam was (and still is) a grieving father. It's shameful in view of the REAL evidence! Denise Nix, Shannon Farren and KFI radio did everything they could to lead you down the wrong path -- whether or not they actually knew the truth.
This was one of the messages played
"Sarah's mother: Hello
Cam: Sarah?
SM: Who is it?
Cam: Sarah?
SM [unclear what was said]
Cam: This is Cam
SM: This is Sarah's mother
Cam: Oh -- is she there?
SM: No, she's still at the beach
Cam: Ok, I'll call back
end of call"
-----------------------------------
There were calls which addressed the fact that Sarah did not want Cam to attend the viewing or the funeral (actual conversations). These were not played in the courtroom. The call Sprocket talked about was actually two separate phone messages left by Sarah on Cam's message machine.
"Answering machine greeting: ..reached the home of Patty and Cam. We're not here to take your call right now, but if you leave us a message we'll get back to you as soon as we can. Thank you. Bye-bye.
Beep
Sarah: Um, Cameron, this is Sarah. Um, I saw you at the viewing tonight and
Beep
Hang up
Speed dial call to residence of Cam and Patty
[same greeting]
Beep
Sarah: I would just please ask you to respect my wishes and not be there tomorrow for my -- me and my family's sake, please do not come tomorrow!
Beep
Hang up"
--------------------------------------------------
------
I believe Cam's goal was to see Lauren more often. The money issues only developed a big significance for Craig Hum. But let's see --- if I read Sprocket's report correctly, it appears that Cam paid Sarah for quite a long time after Lauren's death. If he were the cold, calculating money monger you would like to make him out to be, how much sense does that make?
Jobeth, you seem to be a smart person. Think about it. Cam never knew or never bothered to find out whether or not Sarah was telling the truth on her documents. He knew he paid alot, but seemed to think it was because that's how it was.
Now, do me a favor and address the issues of the fact that you were lied to by the prosecution regarding Cam's efforts to call Sarah before the attorney told him he couldn't, and the fact that it was Sarah who demanded he not go to the funeral. She also demanded that Patty and Cam could not make any arrangements to have their own private moment with Lauren, even though they asked to do so. Begged, in fact. Craig Hum knows this, and he also knows that Cam wanted to be able to speak with Sarah but was being taped and hounded by LE to the point where his attorney told him to say nothing.
I've said enough. It makes me sick to think these people have had so much salt poured on their wounds (Sarah included) over the past many years.
Maybe I did misunderstand. I thought Cam had petitioned for his child support burden to be lowered, since he wasn't making as much money because he was out of work on disability.Yes, but the main issue for the hearing was visitation. They were having hearings about once a month. As visitation was increased through mediation, there was a hearing where the new visitation scheduled was recorded by the court. At those hearings the amount of child support and Cam's income were also questioned.
Are you saying that the court called a hearing on this of its own volition on the child support issue? That wasn't instigated by his desire for a lower support payment?
This was one of those regularly scheduled hearing. The judge asked Cam about his income and he said he wasn't sure if his income would be reduced due to the injury, but he thought it would be. That's when the judge said he would reduce the child support until they figured it out. This is what the transcripts from that hearing revealed during the cross examination.
It is true that during direct questioning Hum presented it like Cam lied. But in cross examination the transcripts from the hearing were produced which showed that, once again, Hum was misrepresenting what really happened.
Maybe I did misunderstand. I thought Cam had petitioned for his child support burden to be lowered, since he wasn't making as much money because he was out of work on disability.
Are you saying that the court called a hearing on this of its own volition on the child support issue? That wasn't instigated by his desire for a lower support payment? It's highly possible I missed that.
What WAS the genesis of the request for child support to be lowered?
what do Cameron's lies say about his [character]?In the final account you will see that Cam did not tell one lie, but every single alleged lie was a manipulation by the investigators (Smith and Leslie; and Lillienfeld) or the prosecutor (Hum) to create the illusion of a lie.
Ted, if Cameron is not a deceitful person, why did he lie so blatantly about his income?He did not lie so blatantly. He said he wasn't sure if his income had been reduced, but he thought it had been. The judge said he would reduce the child support until they figured it out, and if it turned out that it had not been reduced, Sarah would get a big payment the next time around. That is what the testimony revealed. If you heard something else, the reporting must not be very accurate - or else you are missreading it to make it say what you want to hear. Which is it?
Jobeth66 wrote:
Ted, if Cameron is not a deceitful person, why did he lie so blatantly about his income? That wasn't a mistake. That was deliberate.How do you know? Cameron wasn't simply non-materialistic, he was ANTI-materialistic. He grew up in a VERY wealthy environment, and he turned his back on it. He simply didn't pay as much attention to his finances as he should have.
Ted, if Cameron is not a deceitful person, why did he lie so blatantly about his income? That wasn't a mistake. That was deliberate. He asked for his child support to be lowered because he was on disability and not collecting as much money, except that's NOT true, we saw that in the trial. Unless you're going to now claim that the wage records submitted to the court were inaccurate lies?
I don't think it's set in stone - I think that it looks very, very bad for Cam. And if there were other phone calls that weren't played in court, I'm guessing we'll hear those from the defense, then?
CI - post the transcripts. If you've got data we've not seen, why NOT post them?
I don't know Sarah very well, and I can't speak to her character. And anyway, I'm not inclined to cast aspersions. She has suffered a loss that no mother should ever have to face.
I DO know Cameron, however, and he's NOT a deceitful person. (I know that this isn't what you want to hear, and that you might perhaps be inclined to disparage me for saying so, but that's what the truth of the matter is.)
Jobeth66 wrote:
Sorry, Ted - I'll take Sprocket's impressions over yours,Fine with me. If you want to believe that things are going just swimmingly for the prosecution, I'm not going to try to dissuade you.
she has no dog in this hunt.She doesn't seem to have much common sense, either.
Everyone here sees Sarah as a victim. It's more than disgusting that supposed truth finding has taken anyone down this path of deceit, but Craig Hum is responsible. That others played along is an unfortunate reality.
I was very seriously contemplating posting the transcript of phone calls from Cam to Sarah, but have decided against it. Sprocket's account is not complete, but it's close enough. Those played in the courtroom were NOT the only calls made. This, in spite of Craig Hum's indignant prancing around during the last trial claiming that it never happened! Shameful. He had the friggen tapes!
That reminds me of the witness Hum brazenly confronted Mark Geragos in court about, claiming the witness never existed! The reports that brought that witness forward were also from Craig Hum's discovery in police reports! Is he that incompetent or was it yet another lie?! Taking into account the fact that the witness was knowingly sitting in the hallway for several days, I'll let you be the judge. I'd be willing to place a bet on the fact that it would have never happened in Pastor's courtroom.
Jobeth, maybe you shouldn't be casting anything in stone right now. I am beside myself when I consider the tactics used by the prosecutor in this case. If it weren't so outrageous, I wouldn't be wasting my time. I tried to find some justification for the first few lies, but it got to the point where they were coming one right after the other and affected everything in the prosecution of this case. I don't believe Pat Harris would have invested so much of himself into this case had there not been good reason. As for Craig Hum? I can't imagine anything that is worth a persons integrity. I can't even begin to imagine what his motivation has been. He is dancing as fast as he can, and it shows. This is a case of power running wild, and the unfortunate victims are anyone who has been involved. What has been done to Cam Brown should give anyone great pause, but it's also inexcuseable what has been done to Patty, Sarah and the rest of the family.
Oh, and if Sarah lied on the worksheet, that STILL doesn't excuse Cam for doing the same, yet Ted keeps harping on Sarah. How her lying proves what kind of person she is, essentially. So, if Sarah's lies speak to her character, what do Cameron's lies say about his?
If Leslie was lying about the black candles & figurines, why didn't you have Harris bring that up on cross? Why was that left there for the jury?
Let me know when you have the transcripts, to show me where Sprocket is wrong. I'd love to see them.
You want to pillory Sarah for 'lying' on her child support worksheet (which hasn't been proven, BTW - read Sprocket's comments about the worksheet)Oh yeah? Wait for the trial transcripts and you will see just how accurate your Sprocket really is!
Was Leslie lying about the black candles & figurines?Yes he was!!!
Sorry, Ted - I'll take Sprocket's impressions over yours, she has no dog in this hunt. And when you are scrapbooking (not scrap "board"), the parts of the pictures you don't want? You throw those away, especially if they are pictures of your husband's ex-girlfriend. You don't put them in a box and hide it under the bed. If the answer to the witchcraft question was 'no', why not let the witness answer it? With the forceful objection, the jury gets the wrong impression - that there WERE books on witchcraft. Was Leslie lying about the black candles & figurines? It doesn't sound like it, or Harris would've brought that up on cross.
And you never responded to me with regard to Cam's outright lies. You want to pillory Sarah for 'lying' on her child support worksheet (which hasn't been proven, BTW - read Sprocket's comments about the worksheet) while Cam *clearly* lied, said he was making less because he was on disability (when he wasn't) and that he 'didn't know who was paying him'. So why does he get a pass for lying, Ted? Why haven't you castigated him for that?
Ken Smith wrote:
SHE'S A WITCH!!! THEY'LL BURN YA!The little snippet you posted from Sprocket, I'm sorry, just reveals her to be an ABJECT IDIOT where this trial is concerned. She doesn't get it AT ALL!
The "witchcraft" story had been floated during the original trial, though not in testimony. Apparently, Shannon Farren -- Craig Hum's GIRLFRIEND (though we didn't know it at the time) had alluded to it on radio station KFI (where she works). But nothing was ever said about it in the trial (though the suitcase and the cigar box with the cut-up pictures of Sarah were, in the testimony of Jeff Leslie).
In THIS trial, Jeff Leslie again brought up the suitcase and cigar box with the cut-up photos -- with no mention of black candles and figurines or witchcraft at first. But on cross-examination, Pat Harris produced a cut-out photo of Lauren -- that matched one of the cut-up photos of Sarah -- and pointed out that it had been used in a "scrap-board", a board with all kinds of cut-out photos of all sorts of different things pasted upon it. POOF! There went Hum's tacit suggestion that there must have been something sinister to the cut-up photos -- and quite dramatically at that.
Then, upon "re-direct" testimony of Leslie, Hum asked him if he had found black candles and figurines in the suitcase -- of which there were NO photos presented (as there were of the suitcase, the cigar box, and the cut-up pictures of Sarah). "Yes", Leslie replied. "And did you find books on witchcraft in the house?", Hum then asked (to which the truthful answer would have been "No"). Pat Harris then forcefully objected, with the sound of exasperated annoyance in his voice. The judge sustained just as forcefully and with an equal amount of annoyance. And Hum had no more questions.
On re-cross, Pat Harris noted that it was obvious that the cut-up portions of the photos with Sarah's image had been saved, and had NOT been thrown away -- which Leslie was forced to acknowledge was true. And that was that for the day.
What is also manifestly obvious is that the "witchcraft" angle was, so to speak, nothing more than a "Hail Mary" pass -- a DESPERATION MOVE move by Hum, one that exposes how the case is really going for him. And the fact that Sprocket just doesn't get it goes to show how CLUELESS she really is about what's going on here. If you are relying on Sprocket to give you an indication of how things are going in this trial, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Ken Smith wrote:
Remember, the PSYIH voteI have not voted in that idiotic poll. The meaningful difference here is that it reflects the opinion of people who have NOT observed the proceedings of the current trial. But I have.
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted, I don't "get it" because it is objectively ridiculous."There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." [Prov 16:25]
(BTW, look up the meaning of "ravish".)
I'm just wondering how much Leslie would pay Sprocket to stay home for the rest of the case! Bwahahahahaha!
That's a joke. I think Sprocket is a victim's advocate and her integrity is very important to her. Most of us applaude the noble efforts of advocates, but hope they aren't blinded by missplaced loyalties. She needs to understand that our current justice system has left a string of unintended (or targeted) victims who have been used by the system and some of those who are saddly left in charge of it. Someone should send Craig Hum a case of Excedrine, but it won't be me. He deserves this headache! Judge Pastor is, imo, a fair man who represents the court admirably. It's remarkable how the two judges handled this case. All of Arnold's work should be scrutinized after this travesty.
Loretta, I thought you were gone (according to an earlier post). All I can say is, don't be so sure of your conclusions. Hum isn't the straightest shooter and Jeff Leslie has the integrity of a lizard.
Yeah, they all read here. Even if we didn't know that for a fact (which we do) we could have guessed as much by how they tailored the case this time around. It's actually quite amusing. Whatta tuna.
Ken, I think I may have posted the information about prosecutorial abuse before, but appreciate that you brought it up again. Most of that was only discovered because of the dna cases that were reversed. In Cam's case, and many others, there is no dna evidence to challenge. That opens up another avenue of abuses that aren't currently being measured.
I stand behind Cam Brown and have no intention of backing down. There is far more to this story than the over-zealous behavior of lying cops. I seriously doubt that Sprocket will bother to attend the defense portion of the trial. That's a shame. She has a lot to learn about our justice system and this might turn out to be one of the very best places to learn it.
You have no idea how bad I feel for everyone involved in this case. That anyone would feed on the pain of those who loved Lauren just makes me sick. Revenge does not belong in our system of justice.
I am so tempted to respond to this accusation, but again, I've chosen to remain moot. Just remember everything you heard the first time around (including this trial balloon by Shannon Farren, Hum's girlfriend), and how much of it turned out to be nothing more than desperate bs.
Remember Hum prancing around in the courtroom demonstrating outrage over the fact that Cam didn't attempt to call Sarah or didn't go to Lauren's funeral? Sarah actually testified to that, iirc, and then turned some of the tapes proving otherwise over to the defense. He made one claim after the other that turned out to be nothing more than a lie. That anyone would trust him this time around shows another kind of desperation.
More than four years ago, in response to mounting exonerations of death-row inmates nationwide through DNA testing, the California state Senate created a commission to investigate the causes of wrongful convictions. Headed by former state Attorney General John K. Van de Kamp, the 22-member California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice looked at police procedures, the competence of defense counsel, and the conduct of district attorneys. Last summer it delivered a 185-page report to the Legislature and the governor. Included in the report was an examination of prosecutorial misconduct.http://www.callawyer.com/story.c...d=903325& evid=1
Looking at 2,130 cases of alleged ethics violations by prosecutors over the past decade, the commission found misconduct in 443, or 21 percent of the total. In the vast majority of those instances (390), the judges concluded that the misconduct was harmless error. But in 53 cases the misconduct was sufficiently egregious to reverse a conviction. Some 30 cases involved repeat prosecutorial offenders, and two-thirds of those had engaged in the same bad behavior in multiple trials.
The most common type of prosecutorial misconduct? Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Wayne Delia: I am speechless. Utterly speechless.
I am rarely speechless.
I'm laughing too hard to speak.
I think Denise Nix is reading this blog. She definitely is reading Sprocket's little transcripts. Interesting that Sprocket finally heard for herself about the neat cigar box, black candles and goofy stuff Patty must have hidden under the bed. I'm surprised that Ted did not warn her about that kind of thing. It's the debbil's work, ya know.
Clearly, based on the evidence admitted into the trial record, the jury can conclude that Patty wanted custody of Lauren, even if it was a long shot at best and practially impossible at worst.
This goes back to the conversation I had with Ted in the summer of 2005 when I asked him where was this alleged custody motion filed, when and how?
His response was to attack me, but he never responded to the question of HOW his sister qualified to get custody of that child. Then he went on to say how Cam and Patty were better off financially than Sarah (I think he even called their neighborhood "tony") and that Sarah was a slut, was unfit, blah blah. Totally irrelevant to the issue.
I pointed out all the statutory reasons why this was impossible and also how to arrange for joint custody (shared custody) that would allow Brown and Patty to have Lauren about half the time and not pay any child support.
All they had to do was move to a place near Sarah and Lauren's everyday life, write up a shared parenting agreement, get Sarah and her husband to agree, get a judge to sign off, and Voila!
But, no. It appears that Patty Brown was megalomaniacal about TAKING LAUREN FROM HER MOTHER. So much so, she was resorting to black magic to harm Sarah.
Kinda boomeranged on you, didn't it? It does that a lot. Especially when you don't know what you are doing. Don't mess with that stuff --- bad idea.
Bottom line, basically everything Team Cam has told me about this case that I have been able to verify independently is false. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe anything the Terrible Twins say any more.
Sprocket: Hum goes back to the search of the Brown's home and finding the pictures of Ms. Key-Marer in the suitcase and the black candles and black porcelain figures under the Brown's bed.
CH: Did you find a number of books on witchcraft?
PH: Objection!
JP: Sustained!
And that's it for this witness. I believe his testimony is finally complete.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Ted, don't you think you should start with saving your own witch of a sister first?
Sprocket: PH: Do you know what scrap booking is? [...] Cut out pictures and put them together?
(I can't believe it. I can't believe that Harris is trying to pass off the cut out photos under the Brown's bed as "scrap booking.")
OMFG, Harris! Leave this one alone!!!
Lest you suggest that Pat Harris is on the side of the angels, consider this exchange:
Sprocket: Harris asks the detective who else was at the scene during the rappel down the cliff face. And that there was a discussion about the case? And you said, "Don't worry about the cost, spare no expense on this case?)
CH: Objection! (several grounds)
JP: Sustained!
(Even if this statement is true, it's totally understandable that the Sheriff's office decided to investigate this death to the fullest extent.)
It's unethical as hell, but they actually teach this in law school: Harris knew full well that he was not going to get that comment into evidence, and that it shouldn't have been there in the first place, but he wanted to make damn sure that the jury heard it. So, he brought it up, knowing that Hum's objection would be sustained on several grounds.
Evidently, there is an exception for advocates for baby-killin' brudder-in-laws to the proscription against unethical behavior.
SHE'S A WITCH!!! THEY'LL BURN YA!
OMG! They DID put this into evidence. And yes, anyone even vaguely familiar with the Craft will recognize it as a spell kit. Sprocket's reaction was priceless:
CH: Detective, did you seize a suitcase under the bed?You guys are some kind of Christians! What kind of Christianity do you practice down there in SoCal -- SANTERIA?
JL: The suitcase was not seized, but noted it's contents. [...] Wooden, small cigar box, black ceramic (figurines?), black candles. [...] Inside the cigar box were two small portions of a photographs that appeared to be cut out of a larger photograph.
Hum enters People's #49, foam board with two photos on it. These are evidence photos of what they found. Photo A is a picture of suitcase with the contents. Photo B is of the cigar box with the (head cut-out) photos of Ms. Key-Marer.
(When I see this evidence entered, my jaw almost dropped. I mean literally dropped open during testimony. I had read something about this on other web sites, but at the time I didn't believe it. I thought it was all gossip. Now come to find out it's all true and part of the trial record. I'm sitting in my seat and I'm just dumbfounded by what I'm seeing and hearing.)
Patty wanted a child of her own, and wasn't too subtle about it:
Cam,
Ask for sole legal and physical custody of Lauren. If they tell you that you don't have a good chance of getting it, tell them you want to go for it anyway.
I love you,
Patty
I got a Black Magic Woman.
I got a Black Magic Woman.
Yes, I got a Black Magic Woman,
She's got me so blind I can't see;
But she's a Black Magic Woman and
she's trying to make a devil out of me.
Maybe Ted can tell us how the electric beer helped him to better understand Carlos Santana.
Ted: But there IS a difference here. You're a WHACK-JOB.
You think everyone who disagrees with you is a whack-job, which is more-or-less conclusive proof that you are the whack-job. To the truly insane, the other 99.9% of us seem insane.
Remember, the PSYIH vote ( http://pysih.com/2009/08/12/came...ron-john-brown/
) is 447-to-you that he is "An Evil, Greedy Prick Who Deserves To Burn In Hell Forever -- Oh yeah, big time."
Ted: Ken, I'm sure you don't get this. Nevertheless, you have succeeded (not you personally, though I'm sure you applaud this state of affairs) in banishing God from the public square and in removing the Ten Commandments from the courtroom. And so now you -- PERSONALLY -- reap the results. Despite all your prattling about Locke and Hobbes and the Founding Fathers and the like, without a basis upon an immutable standard, the law is nothing more than a group of powerful men imposing their will upon those less powerful.
Ted, I don't "get it" because it is objectively ridiculous. Though it certainly wasn't his intention, Locke bequeathed to us a system which is entirely independent of divine influence. Our Founding Fathers saw it as divinely inspired, because they looked to Nature for their God. They were deists in substance, if not always in name.
As for your "immutable standard," your Holy Shit doesn't even give us one. First, you can't eat pork and then, you can? [The Jewish dietary laws are for the most part sensible and certainly, they were sensible for their day.] Your god considers it moral for you to offer your virgin daughters to a pack of strange men for them to ravage. Your god tells us that the failure to act constitutes a sin of omission but it is perfectly permissible for him to commit the same failure. If your god is the Creator of the Universe, then truly, there are no immutable moral standards -- only power.
As for "removing God from the public square," when was that ever done? You are perfectly free to pray and preach in Speaker's Corner; no law has ever forbidden that, and I would be among the first to support you if you were assailed for that putative "transgression." The genius of the Framers was in keeping partisan religion out of politics and vice versa -- a practical necessity in a land of religious dissenters and Calvinist zealots. Today, Europe is considered a mission field, largely on account of their failure to adopt our stroke of genius borne of practical necessity.
What we have done is prohibit government officials from using their office as a platform for their religious views. Again, this protects the dissenter, and in a nation of dissenters, protection of the dissenter is important to everyone. As it would be a bad thing -- as I see it, a gross infringement on the parent's right to raise his/her children, which necessarily includes religious instruction -- for a child to be coerced into taking part in a satanic ritual, you have to forgo the temptation to have children subjected to Christian prayer or Zen meditations. You've been in Muslim countries. Why is it somehow a good thing for the majority in that society to impose its collective religious will on their dissenters? Ironically, refraining from indulgence in that sort of heavy-handed behavior is a bedrock Christian principle (Matt. 7:12) -- but given your spectacular ignorance of the Bible, you wouldn't know that.
As for the Ten Commandments being banished from the courthouse, they are not a law code or even a proto-Constitution, and have no discernible purpose there. About the only Mosaic law I care about in a courtroom is the one against bearing false witness, a prohibition which has never restrained you personally, and is never enforced in any courtroom run by a Christian judge.
As for what I "approve of" or "disapprove of," I have repeatedly told you what I do and why. And at the end of the day, it all comes down to one passage of Scripture (well, it is an adaptation of Rabbi Hillel): "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." I don't cite it because it is Scripture but rather, because its truth is self-evident. I'm more interested in process than outcomes, as good process invariably leads to proper outcomes.
"[A] group of powerful men imposing their will upon those less powerful" is not the definition of "law" but rather, that of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson spoke succinctly to that, and I have spoken to you about that by citing him. Again, if you had an understanding of law even slightly exceeding that of the average fencepost, I would not have to be repeating myself so often.
Ted: Your only effective appeal is to God.
It is impossible to mount an effective appeal to a non-existent ancient tribal sky-pixie, as he has no power to act. Remember, the purportedly innocent Cameron Brown has spent more time in jail than the convicted Joe Nacchio will. Are you telling us that his appeal was denied because he is guilty?
Ken Smith wrote [to CI]:
In point of fact, I find you equally offensive, disgusting, and cluelessBut there IS a difference here. You're a WHACK-JOB.
CI: Whoa. You profess to have a moral compass and then say the things you say; and you want me to knock it off? What planet do you come from Ken? And all on the same line? BWAhaha! You have got to be joking! I find you offensive, disgusting and utterly clueless!
One need not believe in a prohibition against so-called "profanity" to have a moral compass. As I see it, words are for communicating, and if there is nothing sacred about them, then others cannot be profane. In point of fact, I find you equally offensive, disgusting, and clueless -- not on account of your speech, but your actions and decisions.
Ken, I'm sure you don't get this. Nevertheless, you have succeeded (not you personally, though I'm sure you applaud this state of affairs) in banishing God from the public square and in removing the Ten Commandments from the courtroom. And so now you -- PERSONALLY -- reap the results. Despite all your prattling about Locke and Hobbes and the Founding Fathers and the like, without a basis upon an immutable standard, the law is nothing more than a group of powerful men imposing their will upon those less powerful.
Your only effective appeal is to God. Because it is His opponent (whom you serve) who has brought you to this place.
Whoa. You profess to have a moral compass and then say the things you say; and you want me to knock it off? What planet do you come from Ken? And all on the same line? BWAhaha! You have got to be joking! I find you offensive, disgusting and utterly clueless!
Welcome to another installment of Founding Fathers Theatre:
TheOdor: Whenever someone calls John Adams out and tries to correct him
John A.: Precisely where am I wrong,
TheOdor: Trying to sue the King.
John A.: and why?
TheOdor: They have the guns. You don't.
Of course, TheOdor would never have given that advice to John Adams, because Adams sucks Odor's Jesus' cock. Patrick Henry, otoh....
CI: Just spewed water all over the screen! Then had a coughing fit from laughing so hard!]
Knock it off, you hypocrite! To you, your precious Teddie's asshole smells like rose petals.
[Just spewed water all over the screen! Then had a coughing fit from laughing so hard!]
Ken: Shame can only affect those who possess a moral compass
Ted: No wonder that Ken Smith is so shameless.
And precisely what have I done that qualifies as "shameless?" (Not consenting to suck your Jesus' diseased donkey-dick does not qualify.)
Ted: Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct himFine, Ted. Let's apply that rule to everyone's favorite low-life cold-blooded BABY-KILLER, Cameron John Brown.
Ken: Precisely where am I wrong,
Ted: Trying to sue the judicial establishment.
Ken: and why?
Ted: They have the guns. You don't.
He has no right to resist, because Craig Hum has the guns and Cam doesn't. Forget about the niceties of due process and equal protection -- they don't exist. Forget about those God-given inalienable rights -- whereas God giveth, the men God put into office have the right to take away. Not much left to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, for that matter, because some men are above the law and others are beyond its protection.
Evidently, this is what your god intended, Ted. Your god is an agent of injustice, and when he wants to fuck you in the ass, you have to take it.
Come on and admit it, Ted: CAMERON DESERVES THIS! And so does your fat, ugly, and stupid deserves-to-be-an-old-maid sister. Your rules, consistently applied. Now, shut the fuck up about your baby-killin' brudder-in-law, wouldya?
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Trying to sue the judicial establishment.Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct himPrecisely where am I wrong,
and why?They have the guns. You don't.
Ken Smith wrote:
Shame can only affect those who possess a moral compassNo wonder that Ken Smith is so shameless.
Ted: Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct him
Precisely where am I wrong, and why?
If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body.If our judges don't have to follow an objectively auditable law, then they have every right to fuck Cam with the proverbial baseball bat, and we should all get out of the way. It is difficult to imagine anyone who deserves it more than Team Cam.
Apart from the untrammeled licentiousness, the American legal system is indistinguishable from that of the regime of the Emperor Caligula. As Suetonius records, he imposed taxes on food, lawsuits, and wages, but did not publish his tax laws; as a result,
… great grievances were experienced from the want of sufficient knowledge of the law. At length, on the urgent demands of the Roman people, he published a law, but it was written in a very small hand, so that no one could make a copy of it.Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars 280 (trans. A. Thomson; G. Bell & Sons, 1893), Ch. 4, § LXI.
Show me that I don't have a legitimate grievance. Go ahead, Fat Fuck! Enlist your stupid and ugly twin sister (her husband's own words, testified to under oath) in the endeavor, if you must. Either put up or stick your Jesus' cock back in your mouth and STFU!
Ken: Nonsense. [The Bible] has [only] the power that men give it,
Ted: Men CANNOT gove the Bible the power that flows forth from it. Only God can.
Argument by irrational assertion. How original, coming from you.
CI: If you attempt to alter people's behavior through intimidation and ridicule (as Alinsky suggests) you will only achieve the desired goal by attacking those who are weak and uncertain about themselves.
Shame can only affect those who possess a moral compass -- a state of affairs foreign to you.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Men CANNOT gove the Bible the power that flows forth from it. Only God can.Don't kid yourself. If you didn't see the Bible as having any power, you would regard it as pointless to quote it.Nonsense. It has the power that men give it,
Nonsense. It has the power that men give it, which makes it useful to me. To show the normal Christian that his conduct is not in accordance with Jesus' teachings is often useful in persuading him to alter his conduct. You, on the other hand, are a "Christian" in name only, and would not suffer being chastised for your hypocrisy. This is equally useful in our debates, as it establishes that you are not a Christian but rather, a sociopath masquerading as one.If you attempt to alter people's behavior through intimidation and ridicule (as Alinsky suggests) you will only achieve the desired goal by attacking those who are weak and uncertain about themselves. Or, perhaps people just relent because it's useless to talk with you and probably not very important. You are definitely obsessed to go on about it 24/7 for the last decade and to resort to the tactic of Saul Alinsky.
Ken
Ted: The time is NOW to get your heart right with the Lord. Otherwise, what will you say to Him when you stand before Him at the Final Judgment?
I should ask you the same question, as it is manifestly obvious from my extensive knowledge of Christianity (and in particular, the epistles to Timothy and from James) that you do not have your own heart right with the Lord, and have a distressingly long way to go to achieve that aim. I do not believe in your Bible-babble, having been cured of that malady through exposure to people like you and your god's many failings, and have no particular reason to worry about it.
Remember the rule: "Once saved, always saved." I've been washed in the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrrrl, am an ordained minister authorized to perform nuptials, and have covered my bases with every religion this side of Islam and $cientology (in the Hindu faith, I get an endless array of second chances, and under the Mormon worldview, they can save me after I die anyway). All I have to do is confess Al'lah before I die (I'll let $cientology go), and I'm golden!
Ted: Ken doesn't like to be told that he is wrong. Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct him, Ken lets loose with an incessant stream of abuse until his opponent relents or withdraws and Ken is the only one left standing. Alas for Ken, that game doesn't work on me. And Ken has had no remedy except to ratchet up the abuse against me until it is now (and has been for some whille) at an extreme level.
You are projecting again, Ted.
Unlike Ted, I am comfortable in the world of logic, reason, and evidence. I have no problem with people showing me that I am wrong, but I do have a certain aversion to people declaring that I am wrong because "I said so." When it comes to public servants, they are servants of the law, and not its master; unlike Ted, who believes that some men are our betters, I take the Framers' proclamation that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights seriously. This is the essential difference between the Christian mindset (When Jesus fucks you in the ass, you are supposed to say, "Please, Sir, may I have another thrust?") and the deistic one ("You are no better than me, and have no right to lord power over me.").
That Ted is a sociopath and self-loathing closet homosexual is an integral part of what he is, and why he takes such pleasure in being reamed on the 'Net. People are telling him what he believes about himself: that he is ugly both inside and out and just as fat and stupid as his brother-in-law thinks his twin sister is, and that his behavior is compulsive. It is, and not incidentally, the main attraction of the Madison Avenue religion known as Christianity, which holds that everyone is a sinner who needs a savior (sell the disease and make it sound awful ["Halitosis"], and then, sell the cure ["Listerine"]).
Ted is impervious to logic and reason, and equally incapable of presenting a logical argument. He is best off as a glorified telephone repairman, who only has to tinker with things and therefore, is able to avoid having to develop any people skills. It would be one thing if I were the only one saying that Ted is a mental basket case who belongs in Atascadero, but it is the consensus of everyone he encounters here on the 'Net. When everyone else who doesn't agree with you 100% is to be tarred and feathered as "whack-jobs," it is far more likely that you are the whack-job.
Ted: Don't kid yourself. If you didn't see the Bible as having any power, you would regard it as pointless to quote it.
Nonsense. It has the power that men give it, which makes it useful to me. To show the normal Christian that his conduct is not in accordance with Jesus' teachings is often useful in persuading him to alter his conduct. You, on the other hand, are a "Christian" in name only, and would not suffer being chastised for your hypocrisy. This is equally useful in our debates, as it establishes that you are not a Christian but rather, a sociopath masquerading as one.
Case Insider wrote:
I will never understand your obsession, Ken.You need to understand what Ken is at his core: a spoiled brat who was most likely overindulged as a child and has never learned the meaning of the word "No".
Ken doesn't like to be told that he is wrong. Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct him, Ken lets loose with an incessant stream of abuse until his opponent relents or withdraws and Ken is the only one left standing. Alas for Ken, that game doesn't work on me. And Ken has had no remedy except to ratchet up the abuse against me until it is now (and has been for some whille) at an extreme level.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Don't kid yourself. If you didn't see the Bible as having any power, you would regard it as pointless to quote it. No, the problem here is that, as God is now exercising His grace, you suppose that you can escape His Judgment forever. But when an infidel is on his deathbed, it is not so. He is in abject terror.Ken Smith wrote:Quite to the contrary, Ted.You're forgetting, Ted -- I don't believe in your babbling Man-written Book-o'-Blood, and do not regard it as carrying any intrinsic value.Yes you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother quoting it.
The time is NOW to get your heart right witht the Lord. Otherwise, what will you say to Him when you stand before Him at the Final Judgment?
I will never understand your obsession, Ken.
CI: A heathen is one, such as yourself, who does not acknowledge God and the Bible. Most certainly Alinsky was also such a man. To wield the Bible against those who profess to believe, is a tactic meant to belittle Christians for their inability to be perfect in the eyes of God.
There is a palpable difference between trying and failing and Ted's state of affairs (not trying at all).
CI: This is obviously what you believe represents a hypocrite because you wrongly assume that Christians believe they are perfect and should be horrified at the prospect that they are not.
A "hypocrite" is one who advocates one course of action and/or demands that others adhere to it while willfully and contumaciously refusing to adhere to it himself. This is where Ted's picture is found in the dictionary.
I am not in the habit of belittling those Christians who actually make an effort to live their faith. It is also self-evident that this population does not include Ted.
CI: You wrongly believe that you can point to the imperfections and expose a hypocrite. It must be very frustrating for those who hope to do so because a Christian is the first to acknowledge their shortcomings.
By that metric, Ted is quite obviously not a Christian, which has been my point all along. What business does he have in preaching, if even he does not respect his Jesus enough to make a colorable effort to practice what Jesus advocated?
CI: A heathen, on the other hand, has no way to measure themselves and therefore doesn't see that they have fallen short. A heathen is far more likely to believe they are perfect.
That statement borders on the profoundly nonsensical; your standard is one conceived entirely by men. Whether we are to measure ourselves against it is purely one of inclination, as opposed to obligation.
CI: This is demonstrated by Alinsky because, I believe, he arrogantly thought he was superior and would be successful in his goal to manipulate the masses and create a socialist society in the midst of free people. I think those who strive to do so will fail miserably. Perhaps that is the source of some of your frustration. Perhaps that is part of the problem that Obama faces today as he realizes the masses are not going to just roll over and play dead even as he attempts to demonize and ridicule them. I'm just thinking out loud.
It does have a certain brain-fart quality about it.
My view is that how you act is the most reliable barometer of what you believe. The Christian's word is one meant for preaching, as opposed to keeping -- which is why he or she is so justly despised.
A heathen is one, such as yourself, who does not acknowledge God and the Bible. Most certainly Alinsky was also such a man. To wield the Bible against those who profess to believe, is a tactic meant to belittle Christians for their inability to be perfect in the eyes of God. I would say that Alinsky and his ilk got it all wrong because Christians know they are imperfect and should readily acknowledge that fact. Only by measuring ourselves against the high standards established by God can we fully appreciate the work that needs to be done. This is obviously what you believe represents a hypocrite because you wrongly assume that Christians believe they are perfect and should be horrified at the prospect that they are not. You wrongly believe that you can point to the imperfections and expose a hypocrite. It must be very frustrating for those who hope to do so because a Christian is the first to acknowledge their shortcomings. A heathen, on the other hand, has no way to measure themselves and therefore doesn't see that they have fallen short. A heathen is far more likely to believe they are perfect. This is demonstrated by Alinsky because, I believe, he arrogantly thought he was superior and would be successful in his goal to manipulate the masses and create a socialist society in the midst of free people. I think those who strive to do so will fail miserably. Perhaps that is the source of some of your frustration. Perhaps that is part of the problem that Obama faces today as he realizes the masses are not going to just roll over and play dead even as he attempts to demonize and ridicule them. I'm just thinking out loud. It's quite interesting, actually.
CI: Without the desired and anticipated reaction, Saul Alinsky's tactics are impotent and useless. Never underestimate your opponent.
It is exceedingly difficult to underestimate Ted. That having been said, Alinsky has a point. As I explained to Madelyn Murray-O-Hair, the Bible can be a formidable weapon in the hands of the heathen who knows how to wield it. As a general rule, Christians can't live up to their faith, but Ted doesn't even make an effort.
Without the desired and anticipated reaction, Saul Alinsky's tactics are impotent and useless. Never underestimate your opponent.
Ken: You're forgetting, Ted -- I don't believe in your babbling Man-written Book-o'-Blood, and do not regard it as carrying any intrinsic value.
Ted: Yes you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother quoting it.
Quite to the contrary, Ted. Ever read Saul Alinsky?
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):Sometimes, I can't help but wonder if you read anything more illuminating than TV Guide, Ted. Your ignorance is as wide as it is deep.
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Yes you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother quoting it.Ken Smith wrote [quoting the Bible]:You're forgetting, Ted -- I don't believe in your babbling Man-written Book-o'-Blood, and do not regard it as carrying any intrinsic value.Rom.13:1,7,"let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities" Titus3:1 "continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers."You mean, like ... THE COLORADO BAR EXAMINERS' BOARD?!
Ken: Our system assumes that Craig Hum will do everything within the rules to secure a conviction
anony: There lies the problem.
Not here. He can't do anything outside of the rules unless Judge Pastor lets him. Problem is, Judge Pastor has considerable discretion regarding what "the rules" are in his court. IOW, like Pat Harris' arguably frivolous motion for a mistrial, he can ask, but there is no guarantee as to whether he will get it. As long as the judge calls an honest game, the system works.
Our system assumes that Craig Hum will do everything within the rules to secure a convictionThere lies the problem.
CI: You are right, it's all over the place (problems in the justice system). I think you are on the right track with your organization and efforts to do something about it. The problems need to be exposed. I'd like to take the time to look at what you are doing after this is over. I think the key is zero tolerance and absolute accountability, but reaching a goal like that isn't very likely anytime soon.
Unfortunately, you have to give the system a chance to work before you can declare that it has failed. The few due process problems I see with Cam's case are his fault, such as waiving his speedy trial rights. You claim that he has been blackmailed, but the stark reality is that proving that allegation is problematic at best. I mean, look at how much deference Ted gives to judges who decide a case in which they are defendants! Who is going to find fault with a judge who is legally qualified to hear a case being asked to hear it?
CI: I've always heard that when you want the dirt about someone you ask the most likely people to be mad at them for something. Ex's often fit the bill, but it's my guess that many of them aren't as reliable as we might like them to be. Besides, they have their own agenda which is just as likely as not more bs. There is always two sides to a story.
Actually, it is more like three.
In this case, they are looking for patterns. How does Cam think? What does he do? The law establishes a standard for when evidence does and doesn't come in, and Judge Pastor appears to have called a solid game behind the plate.
CI: When you need to resort to ex's going back 20 years, it makes you go "hmmmm".
Again, the law disagrees. Our system assumes that Craig Hum will do everything within the rules to secure a conviction, and that Pat Harris will do everything he can within those rules to frustrate that goal. Unless you can show that Judge Pastor has been calling pick-off moves to first base as strikes, it's hard to complain here.
The way I'm scoring it (based on Sprocket's accounts), Team Hum has had a solid innings, with Team Cam's attack appearing impotent. Team Cam has a daunting task ahead of them, but not an impossible one. Their experts in particular will have to hit a ton.
Chinwah v. Harris: An unqualified knockout. No useful admissions helping the defense. Another Kook Kaldis Klan conspiracy theory (the five-month delay in issuing the autopsy) debunked rather brutally (Sprocket's remarks in blockquote/italics):
PH: And based on that, based on your looking at those injuries and and (?) on the back of the arm, they were still consistent with someone being thrown?To come to a conclusion of homicide (as opposed to "indeterminate"), one has to be able to rule out the alternative ("accident"), and Dr. Chinwah's little field trip did exactly that. Almost Quincy-esque in his diligence. The very picture of prudence and responsibility.
I believe Dr. Chinwah states "Yes." And that's the end of cross. Hum gets up to redirect.
CH: Was it important to you in making the determination as to MOD, to actually seeing the place where Lauren died?
Dr. C: Yes.
CH: Just based on the injuries and no knowledge of the scene, would you have been able to make a determination, based on just that?
Dr. C: No.
I have to keep impressing on you the definition of probable cause, as it pertains to pre-trial incarceration: If you believe the government's witnesses, is there enough evidence for a reasonable person (most emphatically, not members of Team Cam) to believe that the accused had committed the crime he was charged with. There is gracious plenty here for Murder One and accordingly, the State has the legal right to hold Cam without bail.
Any misstatements by Hum before the GJ would be regarded as harmless error.
As I have said over and over again, I don't approve of the process, but that is my personal view and moral assessment, which scarcely carries the weight of a feather. Again, I don't care how this case turns out, but it is clear that the incarceration itself was not a DP violation.
The very definition of pointless (Sprocket's comments in blockquote):
Uh, not like the fat old hag in the second row is going to be out surfing that afternoon, Pat. Again, you don't think it matters ... but it does.
It's stated that on the morning of Lauren's death, someone was on the Internet looking up surf reports.
Cross is finished and redirect begins.
Hum gets the witness to verify that on the morning of November 10th, someone was on the Dell Tower computer looking up surf reports.
Harris recrosses.
PH: Were you aware that Mr. Brown was actually home that morning?
TF: No.
Let's do the math. Cam was looking up surf reports. Cam was picking up Lauren. Cam is "a planner...." Nice.
Continued from previous post (Sprocket's account in blockquote):
Let's play FreeCreditReport.com:
The witness also reviewed a credit report for Patty Brown. There appeared to be two charge-offs by creditors.In a way, this is actually good: You'd think that if Cam married someone for her money, he could do better than Patty. On the downside, it lends credence to Jon Hans' testimony that they planned to leave SoCal. And here, I thought Patty was a successful engineer!
$911. Macys
MBNA $13,676.
The debt for this individual reflects a mortgage with Countrywide on 3/20/2001 of $176,518.
There is some kind of past due debt with ABCO (?), a date of 2/99 of $5,000.
There is some kind of payment/charge off (?) in ?/2000 of $67.00 with NACC (?).
She reviewed the balances on (I believe?) credit cards.
AA (?) $24.00
Citibank $2,049.00
Union Bk $5,737.00
Discover $6,975.00
Robinsons-May $209.00
There is a document the witness reviewed that showed Mrs. Brown was fired from her Hermosa Beach job on February 22, 2000. When she was fired, she had already taken advance vacation days. She owed the city more than she had earned when fired.
Patty Brown's W2 forms:
1999 gross: $37,657.83
1999 net: $29,313.48
2000 gross: $7,926.45
2000 net: $6,2363.23
This makes some of the oddities clearer:
She was given documents and she generated a report. Mr. Hum allegedly requested a review to determine if financial gain was a motive, in March, 2004. She was requested to look at the finances of both Brown's because they were married.It is beside the point at that point, apart from showing that Patty was living on money she didn't have. Assuming that Sprocket's account is reasonably accurate, child support was a burden, even to the couple.
Harris goes over with the witness what documents she was provided by Hum. ...
Harris asks her why didn't she obtain the Federal tax returns.
JN: It's very difficult to get IRS records. I have not personally been able to get one for work (in the scope of doing her job).
Harris asks the witness if Mrs. Brown had three properties, and if she sold one on April 21, 2001. He asks her if Patty brown walked away with a profit of $73,000 from that sale.
Again, I'd have to see the raw data to express an authoritative opinion, but this did not look like a good witness for Team Cam. Ngo seems to have gotten through unscathed.
Sprocket's account of Day 13 is now up, and it wasn't particularly lucky for Cam.
While Sprocket's account of it is admittedly somewhat disjointed, Jane Ngo's testimony doesn't sound anywhere near as professionally negligent as had been represented to me by Team Cam -- that Team Cam would lie to me is hardly a surprise any more. Sprocket's observations are in blockquote (italics for Loretta's blog):
In March, 2004 the DA's office provided her with the finances for Cameron Brown and Patty Kaldis Brown. The witness states what bank records she received.So much for the claims by Team Cam that Ngo only considered Cam's income, which would have presumptively constituted professional negligence (I can't think of any exceptions, but there may be some that I haven't thought about). Ted, caught lying? Wattashock!
She received bank account records from May, 2000 to June, 2001. She also received payroll info from January 2000 to May, 2001. She also received credit card reports for Cameron Brown and Patty Brown from reporting agencies. Several agencies generated reports for as of May, 2000. She analyzed all this material and presented her findings to Hum.
How do you live in SoCal on less than $1500/month take-home?
It seems that Harris is a bit of a sociopath, as well:
Harris and Hum are still shuffling around in the well area during the break. As I get up from my seat to go get a snack, Harris has an impish grin on his face and says (I believe) in Hum's direction, "I don't know hat you're making such a big deal about. That's ($96.21) not much more than what I have." As I walk past that area of the well on my way out of the courtroom, I say to Harris, "Oh I doubt that."Geragoesthemoney must not be paying minimum wage.
Again, Team Cam lied to me:
The witness now testifies about several items that have been charged off that appear on the defendant's credit report. Some of the items don't have dates beside them as to when they became bad debts. >b>These items appeared on a May 2001 credit report.La repo! The repossession. [have to break this one up]
12/1995 $61.00 (B of A?)
08/2000 $148.00 (American Agency?)
04/2001 $161.00 (American Agency?)
07/1997 $52.00 (CWLTH)
?????? $167.00 (Metro Adjustment Bureau?)
04/30/2000 $561.00 (Area? Finance?)
2/1999 $53.00 (AFNI, Inc.?)
1/1999 $1,358 (? Agency) ...
There was a repossession from Nissan Motors in August, 1996 for $12,974.00
They've already found out. Sarah LIED on the form used to fill in the data for the "Disometer", the computer program used in California to determine the appropriate amount of child support that one should pay. She used the joint expenses for both her and her husband, but she put down that she was single. Moreover, her weekly salary had been cut in half on the day before she filled out the form. And it just so happened that the company for which she was working was owned by her husband and his brother. (All this information was brought out in cross-examination.)
This form was filled out under penalty of perjury, btw.
So, Ted - what's your take on Cam's perjury, that he "didn't know" who was paying him, and that he wasn't getting his full paycheck, when testimony that Sprocket detailed now clearly shows (with *copies of his pay statements*) that he absolutely and completely lied?
Or is the airline lying and falsifying records to show he was getting paid in full when he really wasn't?
Ken [quoting the Bible]: Rom.13:1,7,"let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities" Titus3:1 "continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers."
Ted: You mean, like ... THE COLORADO BAR EXAMINERS' BOARD?!
You're forgetting, Ted -- I don't believe in your babbling Man-written Book-o'-Blood, and do not regard it as carrying any intrinsic value. I prefer Locke's Second Treatise; ironically (because Locke was a traditional Christian who wrote a polemic against it), it is one of the most deistic works of its era.
The logical progression from Christian thought to the Enlightenment came through Calvin. The Biblical paradigm was the divine right of kings, evidenced by the aforementioned snippets of Scripture. Calvin and Luther eroded the concept of a religious hierarchy to the point where the Baptist "priesthood of believers" heresy became mainstream. (Calvin basically gave birth to deism, though he certainly didn't intend to.) Political thought went from Paul to Policraticus (Bishop John of Salisbury) to Leviathan (Hobbes) to the Second Treatise -- from the logic of authority to the authority of logic. People were no damn good, said Calvin, and judging by you, he wasn't too far off the mark.
Because people were no damn good, and God didn't ordain anything -- how could God have given us leaders like George W. Bush? -- it became incumbent upon us to insist upon accountability in government.
Ken Smith wrote [quoting the Bible]:
Rom.13:1,7,"let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities" Titus3:1 "continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers."You mean, like ... THE COLORADO BAR EXAMINERS' BOARD?!
I've always heard that when you want the dirt about someone you ask the most likely people to be mad at them for something. Ex's often fit the bill, but it's my guess that many of them aren't as reliable as we might like them to be. Besides, they have their own agenda which is just as likely as not more bs. There is always two sides to a story. When you need to resort to ex's going back 20 years, it makes you go "hmmmm". It's probably wise to take it all with a grain of salt.
You are right, it's all over the place (problems in the justice system). I think you are on the right track with your organization and efforts to do something about it. The problems need to be exposed. I'd like to take the time to look at what you are doing after this is over. I think the key is zero tolerance and absolute accountability, but reaching a goal like that isn't very likely anytime soon.
CI: No, Ken, in a sense it's more like war. The difference is that it boils down to truth over fiction. We feel very confident in our position because you don't have to fear the truth. Hum has thrown in every conceivable thing he could think of to make Cam out the bad guy and the liar. Nothing has changed.
Gee, that's kind of how I feel! Ted Kaldis is a compulsive liar. I have always been confident in my position because I don't have to fear the truth. After all, it's not like I have my friends saying on the witness stand that I said that I married my fat, ugly, stupid, and otherwise on her way to being and old maid mother er, wife for her money....
If you want to know the truth about a man, ask his ex-mistress. Hum has done a great job of getting Cam's friends to say incredibly damaging things that make it more likely that he murdered Lauren. Again, we're talking about his friends and intimate associates.
And we know that Cam did lie about Sarah. The tape was the tale.
With documents missing from its files and clerks signing orders without the approval of any justices much less than the number required according to Florida's Constitution, it’s no wonder why those in the judicial reform community say, "There are those who believe in America's justice system and those who have experience with it."http://blip.tv/file/1339250
Wondering Why We Are Bailing Out Those Banks? Could it be FRAUD!?!?! This article contains links to the Miami Herald articles showing that (surprise, surprise) the "regulators," "law" enforcement, and the prosecuting princes looked the other way while widespread mortgage fraud went unchecked. Did the Bush Administration direct them to look the other way while all kinds of scamming was going on? Let's see. Bush I is ruling during the Savings and Loan bail out, and Bush II is ruling when the banks need to be bailed out. Does anyone see a pattern here?
Could it be that widespread corruption has taken hold in our country because the foundations provided for the people to control our government have been undermined? To learn more about how our rights to control our government have been undermined, see Senate Bailout a.k.a. Bank Robbery Bill and make sure that you read the first comment to it.
For more about "justice" in Floriduh, see the link at the upper right of this page to the video of Martin A. Dyckman, former editor of the St. Petersburg Times, talking about his new book "A Most Disorderly Court." The book is about his reporting on a scandal involving case fixing in the Florida Supreme Court and the shake up in the court which followed.Really. It's everywhere.
He also talks about the problems caused by keeping complaints about judicial misconduct secret, about the need for reforms in our courts, and about the failure of the mainstream press to report on judicial misconduct.
No, Ken, in a sense it's more like war. The difference is that it boils down to truth over fiction. We feel very confident in our position because you don't have to fear the truth. Hum has thrown in every conceivable thing he could think of to make Cam out the bad guy and the liar. Nothing has changed.
Rom.13:1,7,"let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities" Titus3:1 "continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers."
If the superior authorities -- Craig Hum, Danny Smith, Judge Mark Arnold -- want to run over Cam, what is it to a Christian? After all, according to your Holy Shit, it's your god's will....
Hmmm. The lyric was appreciated, Loretta. I said thank you and commented on things it brought to mind to me. I'm not sure what else you were looking for. In any case, good luck to you as well. I mean that in all sincerity.
Ken: I'm tired of your mendacity and hypocrisy, CI. Everyone else sees it, but you have no shame.
Ted: This is a comment that should properly be applied to Ken Smith.
Specifically how, Fat Fuck? You throw these charges around as indiscriminately as Cam threw luggage (and quite possibly, an illegitimate daughter), but can never back them up with credible evidence.
Max the Cat: No, Lauren Key is dead because of one person, Cameron John Brown, and his obsession with his money and his “freedom”. He is one of the more disgusting child murderers I’ve ever had the distinct displeasure of having to get to know with as part of my job here at PYSIH.
Smiley: How about how he never went back to her body on the picnic table to hold her and sob and “say goodbye”? If that was my child they would have had to PEEL me off of her body, I would’ve been hysterically grabbing to her and not wanting to let her go. I’ve never thought someone could be so cold about an “accidental” death of their OWN CHILD. He’s guilty…..good thing for him I’m not on his jury I guess lol
Moop: [T]he cop who broke the news to Lauren’s mother had talked to over 100 families prior to this case and had never seen such a heartbreaking reaction from a mother before.
Cam was making quips. Quite a guy.
Omama: When you read the transcript there’s no doubt that this evil bastard is guilty as hell. He showed no emotion after his daughter’s violent death. Rather he joked with sunbathers. Listen to the 911 tape. Her mother on the other hand was hysterical and even threw up. Do not even comment on this case until you’ve read T&T. One of his best friends is now even convinced of his guilt. He supposedly a big outdoorsman. If there is any justice his outdoors will be limited to a prison yard.
Yeah, it's just the "whack-jobs," Ted. All 6.9 billion.
Ted: It is sad to see that Ken Smith's heart is filled with such hate.
Jews had a reason to hate Hitler. I only hate assholes, and you are the biggest one I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
Ted: And everyone DOES see it, except for a few whack-jobs that Ken has defending him.
Who do you have defending you? Your sister Patty (a.k.a., "anony")? Marrying that low-life piece of trailer trash (funny, but Cam does seem to think of her as his sugar mama, according to testimony given under oath by one of his friends) casts serious aspersions on her judgment. Without Cam's for-profit proposal, she'd be well on to old-maidhood by now. And as for you, the Darling of Darlinghurst will always remain single, mostly because even though gay marriage is now legal in California, you'll always have to satisfy your urges at the glory hole. You're too ugly to turn on anything but a female walrus.
In the history of USENET, no one has ever defended you except for that crank Gilligan. That's quite a record, Legendary Net-KooooooooooK.
Ken: Some of understand that the system is broken.
Ted: But I don't know that it's broken in your case.
That is because logic and you have never gotten along very well to begin with, you got your "law degree" from the dregs of a bottle of Wild Turkey, and you are a proven stalker and sociopath who has no qualms about making up any "fact" you need to win an argument. And given your long history of lying and being caught for it, Electric Beer Boy, you wonder why no one believes your "get-up-a-running-start-to-take-a-flying-leap" theory? There's a reason why the pysih poll shows 433 guilty votes to none outside of Team Cam.
Ted lied: Ken apparently expects that we should side with him simply on hearing just his side of the story. Accordingly, we should be obliged to conclude that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, the Denver Federal District Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado District Court for the 2nd Judicial District (Denver), the Colorado State Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court are all wrong in his case, and that Ken is right.
I do nothing of the sort, but lying comes to you as easily as breathing. I merely ask people to examine the judicially noticeable (which, incidentally, translates to "indisputable") facts of the case.
If federal and state judges were (wo)men of honor, who could be counted on to apply the law of the land to the true facts of every case no matter how much they despised the outcome, this dispute would have been over a long time ago. Unfortunately, history is replete with exam ples of judges placing their fingers on the scales of justice for dishonorable ends, and the problem is most pronounced when fellow judges are in the dock. The Breyer Commission described this disturbing phenomenon as “undue ‘guild favoritism.’” Stephen Breyer, et al., Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief Justice (Sept. 2006) at 1.
How is it logically possible for me to prove that judges have placed their fingers on the scales of justice to protect their fellows, if you are entitled to a conclusive presumption that they are not? It would be like saying that the mere fact that Cam Brown took his daughter up to Inspiration Point is conclusive proof that he intended to and did murder her in cold blood. If that is "unfair" when it comes to your baby-killin' brudder-in-law, how is it fair when the rule is applied to me?
Differing weights and measures: Doesn't your LORD detest them both?
Ted: As for this nonsense about "judges deciding a case in which they were defendants in tort", well, that's just Ken's "cleverness" catching up with him. Ken thought that if he could name the court as defendants, he would paint them into a box. Alas for Ken, it didn't turn out that way.
Again, if you understood the law you wouldn't say that, but you are living proof of the fact that while ignorance is curable, stupid is most certainly forever. Evidently, "stupid" is a bottomless well in your family, according to your baby-killin' brudder-in-law.
Ted: Ken apparently hasn't learned LBJ's dictum that "you don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk".
Then all means, let us hope that the "skunks" at the LASD get their man; innocence or guilt has no bearing on it, under your rule of decision. Cameron Brown is a low-life who married your fat, ugly, and stupid sister for money (his honest admission, testified to by his close friend under oath; I've never seen Patty/anony, but can only imagine what http://home.earthlink.net/~19ran...r57/
TED_AUS.jpg looks like with shoulder-length dishwater-grey hair), and therefore deserves everything the authorities can dish out to him, based on LBJ's dictum and your rule of decision.
Loretta wrote:
Farewell and good luck.Don't let the door slap yer backside on the way out.
Game. Set. Match.
I knew it was a waste of time to bother trying to have a dialogue with you people. Maybe Ken gets some twisted entertainment value, but you all remind me of the worst kind of people I know. Not the outright criminals, not the ignorant trash, not the overt troublemakers, but the snakes in the grass, the sanctimonious hypocrites, the "smiling faces" that stab you in the back as soon as look at you. Clannish, myopic, ruthlessly judgmental, sickeningly fake.
Being around you is toxic for me. Thus, I must part. Farewell and good luck.
Ken Smith wrote:
I'm tired of your mendacity and hypocrisy, CI. Everyone else sees it, but you have no shame.This is a comment that should properly be applied to Ken Smith. And everyone DOES see it, except for a few whack-jobs that Ken has defending him.
Ken Smith wrote:
Some of understand that the system is broken.But I don't know that it's broken in your case.
Ken Smith wrote:
Case Insider wrote:Ken apparently expects that we should side with him simply on hearing just his side of the story. Accordingly, we should be obliged to conclude that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, the Denver Federal District Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado District Court for the 2nd Judicial District (Denver), the Colorado State Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court are all wrong in his case, and that Ken is right. Sorry, but the world just doesn't work that way.As for your case, I can't be more clear that I don't know enough about it to come to any determination.Bullshit on fuckin' STEROIDS!!! Judges decided a case in which they were the fuckin' defendants in tort.
As for this nonsense about "judges deciding a case in which they were defendants in tort", well, that's just Ken's "cleverness" catching up with him. Ken thought that if he could name the court as defendants, he would paint them into a box. Alas for Ken, it didn't turn out that way. Ken apparently hasn't learned LBJ's dictum that "you don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk".
Ted: It is sad to see that Ken Smith's heart is filled with such hate.
Jews have a right to hate Nazis. I have earned the right to despise you, as you have done more than enough to deserve it.
Ted: Please pray for Ken.
As Wayne observed: "Prayer - the last refuge of a scoundrel." (Lisa Simpson, on "The Simpsons")"
Your god is evidently too busy sodomizing young boys on the golf course to be of any value as a god. After all, he wasn't even there for Cam, who has been rotting in jail for the past six years. And he certainly wasn't of much help to Lauren.
CI: There is a time when each of us would do well to step back and give thought to the words we learned in sunday school or church. There is a very good reason, I believe, why a foundation based in Christianity is important. Honest reflection is good.
You're good at mouthing mindless platitudes. Why can't you implement them in your own life?
CI: Ken, Spence is a colorful, engaging and wise old man, but he wasn't speaking to us
He was speaking to incorrigible hypocrites like you, CI.
Some of understand that the system is broken. But those of us who do also understand how it is supposed to work. Most of what you whine about is actually permissible: If the law authorizes a thing, and it is standard practice to do it, how can anyone say that it is an "injustice" when and only when it is applied to Cam? For instance, Craig Hum has put more than enough evidence on to enable the jury to convict on Murder One -- especially when you use the standards required for an indictment. My own personal view is that standard is too low, and the accused should be treated better than a convicted criminal while in pre-trial incarceration. But that is my own personal view, which is trumped by the considered judgment of the people of California -- a society of which I am not a member. The State had a right to hold Cam without bail pending a trial on the merits, and pretty much any court in the land is going to find that any errors in the indictment process are harmless.
I'm tired of your mendacity and hypocrisy, CI. Everyone else sees it, but you have no shame.
CI: All I have said is that this is not the forum where it should be discussed. That goes for both sides of the argument, imo.
The Oafish One has made it the right place. You can't go complaining about phantom fouls and venial sins when they happen to you, while refusing to acknowledge obvious injustices when they happen to others. It's called "credibility," CI, and you three don't have it.
I take the consistent position that, when I see an actual foul by the State, I'll call it. And as far as I am concerned, I honestly don't care whether Cam is innocent or guilty -- even the guilty are entitled to the protections of the law. Clearly, Ted is not a Man for All Seasons:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
CI: As for your case, I can't be more clear that I don't know enough about it to come to any determination.
Bullshit on fuckin' STEROIDS!!! Judges decided a case in which they were the fuckin' defendants in tort. Show me anywhere else in the civilized world where that has ever been allowed in a democratic republic. ANYWHERE!
This is what I DESPISE about Team Cam: Not one of you possesses even the slightest vestige of honor or integrity. Ted is an established sociopath and stalker, but the rest of you have no excuse. Take you, for example. You whine uncontrollably about due process, and how it was so manifestly unfair for Judge Arnold to hear the case because he allegedly leans toward the prosecution. Tell me: how fair would it be for Jeff Leslie to serve as Cam's judge? Sarah Key-Marer? Danny Smith?
Thomas Hobbes put it this way:
And seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to his own benefit, no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause: and if he were never so fit, yet equity allowing to each party equal benefit, if one be admitted to be judge, the other is to be admitted also; and so the controversy, that is, the cause of war, remains, against the law of nature.Unless you are as inclined as Ted to drink Sam Adams as opposed to read him, you shouldn't be ignorant of who he is. And he has a lot of company, including the current United States Supreme Court:
[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest” in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would cer tainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, cor rupt his integrity.”Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), slip op. at 6.
What the merits of the case are quite beside the point. This is a Brobdignagian violation of my right to have my claims heard by a fair and independent tribunal -- the very first aspect of due process.
And still, you wonder why no one believes you when you complain about "fouls" in Cam's case? You three could not tell the truth with a compass and a road map! When you lie as often as you three do, the rest of us are going to assume at the outset that you are lying from the outset. And then, you have the gall to preach to me?!
In a nutshell, you three are emblematic of all that Christianity has represented to me over the years. It is a disgusting religion, with a psychopathic god.
Thank you, Loretta, for sharing that. There is a time when each of us would do well to step back and give thought to the words we learned in sunday school or church. There is a very good reason, I believe, why a foundation based in Christianity is important. Honest reflection is good.
Ken, Spence is a colorful, engaging and wise old man, but he wasn't speaking to us. His words are fitting for all of society, imo. As for your case, I can't be more clear that I don't know enough about it to come to any determination. To even suggest that I have taken a similar position to Ted's is disingenuous at best. All I have said is that this is not the forum where it should be discussed. That goes for both sides of the argument, imo. I support no one except to say that it has led to what I consider to be disgusting and inexcusable behavior. Please don't put me in the middle of that battle.
As for Sprocket, I'm not surprised that she has acknowledged how difficult it is to remain unbiased, especially when it comes to children. Lauren suffered a tragic and awful death. Sprocket's stomach churns much as my own does, I'm sure. There is no way that most of us can even comprehend the impact on her family and friends. But the question is about whether or not she was deliberately murdered, and I believe she was not. My sympathy is with Lauren, first and foremost, and I only want to make sure the facts are related without flourishes and without lies.
This is about Lauren, and she deserves much more than that, imo. "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is not empty rhetoric. LE in this case seemed to think they could make things up and get away with it. There is no need for lies unless the truth does not support the facts you want to convey. I am offended by their behavior in this case. If all that is accomplished is to bring fairness and truth into the arena, I will be satisfied. Beyond that, it's up to the jury. I think the current judge is doing a good job reigning in most of the bs, and Pat has a fair forum to present his case.
Excuse me, but I will not be shutting the fuck up anytime soon. I have a right to my opinions, and I am certain they are based on a whole lot more fact then most of those who have commented on the case. If Sprocket were super human (or had the equipment) she may have been able to record every word, but it's still not going to cement it all together until the entire case is heard. Some of what the prosecutor has put forward (especially in the first trial) was done only for the purpose of creating illusion and drama. It will be addressed at the appropriate time, I'm sure. I will refrain from saying anything about it further until both sides have finished.
Loretta: I have nothing more to say about Ted Kaldis's so-called Christianity. I seriously doubt Jesus would be impressed, never mind how He felt about your threatening others' salvation. Please. Seriously.
Ted knows Jethro Tull better than he does Christianity. At least, he has met Ian Anderson....
When I was a young girl in Catholic school attending Mass weekly and more, I remember a hymn we used to sing a lot. I remember it, because the melody was so annoying; more so than usual. I remember how the word "Christians" sung by 200 people sounded like "Wishes".
The song is "They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love."
I think it's an important idea, even if the song is cheesy and annoying. Instead of advertising one's faith or obedience to a god or God; rather than make public our offerings and generosity; instead of preaching to others how important Jesus is, one should live their faith. We should know you are Christian by your Love. We should be able to tell. We should want what you have and seek it. We should be bathed in the light of your goodness and crave its grace.
We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord
We will work with each other, we will work side by side
And we'll guard each one's dignity and save each one's pride
And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love
We will walk with each other, we will walk hand in hand
Love is patient, love is kind
Never boasts, not full of pride
Always hopes, always trusts
The evidence of Christ in us
This is my commandment that you love one another that your joy may be full
~~~~~~~~~~~
I have nothing more to say about Ted Kaldis's so-called Christianity. I seriously doubt Jesus would be impressed, never mind how He felt about your threatening others' salvation. Please. Seriously.
It is sad to see that Ken Smith's heart is filled with such hate. Please pray for Ken.
Ted: And it is my sincere prayer and desire that you should receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, so that you should partake in eternal life, instead of being condemned to an eternity of torment in hell.
Spare me the Bible-babble, O Blind Guide! Your Jesus spoke to you in particular:
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Y]ou hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. [Y]ou have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside [in your case, we will have to make an obvious exception: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ran...r57/ TED_AUS.jpg ] but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."Really, Ted. You have nothing to teach, and even less to offer.
Sprocket: To me there was just some bombshell testimony on Friday afternoon, Day 14. (I missed hearing testimony in the morning.)Any takes from this side of the aisle?
I heard testimony that just about dropped my jaw in open court. I had read on some web sites about this information....but I didn't believe it. I thought it was simply gossip, lies and speculation. Well, come to find out, it's true, and I was at a loss for words. So was Mr. Sprocket when I told him about the testimony.
CI pontificated: It offends the basic structure of our society to see men with so much power abuse it without even batting an eyelash.
Ted doesn't have a problem with a judge deciding a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, at least sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal is statutorily required to be heard by another court, which are the salient (and, judicially noticeable) facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055). Ken Smith is not entitled to a fair proceeding, but when the judge even gets close to the line and his baby-killin' brudder-in-law is in the dock, righteous anger flows like a fountain. Anyone who agrees with Ted walks with the angels, but anyone who would disagree has made a deal with the devil.
Spare me the pontification, CI. Gerry Spence had something to say about Team Cam:
In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.Spence was calling you guys out. You have no problem with even the grossest of injustices, as long as the wolf wasn't eating you. But when the wolf finally came to your door, how you have howled! "IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!! LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO MY POOR CAM! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!"
The system is broken. Badly. And yet, I am set upon for at least trying to do something about it. Ted's in the back of the boat (nearly capsizing it), while I'm out there trying to walk on water. And who is slinging arrows at me?
Shut the fuck up. You don't have standing to whine. You hypocrites make me ill.
CI: It should be noted again (as it has been previously) that Mark Geragos strenuously objected to the statement made by Hum to the jurors. He was very animated in his objection stating that there was NO SUCH LAW requiring the jurors to vote guilty. I don't recall the response of judge Arnold except that he shut Geragos down and allowed Hum to go on. Judge Arnold's neglect of Cam's right to due process is both shocking and shameful, imo.
You presuppose that the remark was so far over the line as to be anything more than harmless error, and it almost certainly wasn't. Geragos is a paid whore and of course, he is going to object whenever the other side is even close to the line; Harris has raised a number of frivolous objections. What juror doesn't know that he doesn't have to convict anyone? Come on! A reviewing court is going to look at it, shake their heads in bemusement, declare "harmless error," and move on to the next case -- that is, if they actually review it at all (most briefs are not even read by a judge, but summarized by staff and clerks). Arnold knew that he could do what he did. Remember that Cam is not entitled to a perfect trial; only a fair one.
CI: If prosecutors talk like that during any part of the trial it is improper. It is not up to the jury to decide whether or not his statements were inappropriate. It is the duty of the judge to make that clarification. If Hum, Geragos or anyone else makes inappropriate and wrong references to the law, it is up to the other side to make objection and the judge should uphold that objection. It is a blatant violation of due process.
It's impossible to know whether it was or was not proper without knowing precisely what was said, and your side has become infamous for making Mt. Shasta out of a molehill.
Ted: Anyway, the first jury was composed of Oprah-watching Torrance housewives who were taken in by Craig Hum's overpowering emotional appeal during the opening statement (which was largely fashioned out of whole cloth, and had little -- if ANY -- basis in fact). And they made up their minds early on, and just didn't bother listening any more. This time, it's different.
Aaaaaaaahhhhh, hope springs eternal in the sub-human beast. Weren't you the one bleating that one can never tell what a jury will do?
First, it should be noted for the record that you have described "feminine 'logic'" as an oxymoron and in general, appear to hate women. Second, Sprocket has been consistently reporting that the jury appears unimpressed by the defense's muddled and uninspired case. Unlike you, she is independent, and has seen a few juries over the years, so her judgment is probably better than yours. Third, it appears that the prosecution has upgraded and materially streamlined its case -- the voodoo kit is there if Patty takes the stand, but it's probably redundant because of Jon Hans and Harris' staggering blunders on cross.
Like it or not, this will be a close case. The defense is undoubtedly in better shape than Aus right now (they need 400 runs with eight wickets remaining, and there will be a decision), but they will need a pretty strong showing to pull this one out. Here's hoping they have time to focus on it.
If prosecutors talk like that during any part of the trial it is improper. It is not up to the jury to decide whether or not his statements were inappropriate. It is the duty of the judge to make that clarification. If Hum, Geragos or anyone else makes inappropriate and wrong references to the law, it is up to the other side to make objection and the judge should uphold that objection. It is a blatant violation of due process.
After the first trial, the two jurors who had voted "involuntary manslaughter" met with Geragos. They said that deliberations were very heated, with the consensus of most of the jurors being murder two. But these two would not go along. So two other jurors voted murder one as a protest.
BTW, the two who were voting involuntary were doing so because, in closing statements, the prosecutor told the jury that, because of the nature of the evidence presented, they HAD to vote guilty to some extent -- they could NOT vote "not guilty".
Thank you.
Prosecutors frequently talk like that in opening or closing statements. It is nothing unusual or wrong. Geragos himself has been guilty of such rhetoric during the Peterson trial. Hopefully, this time, the jury is one that can distinguish between evidence and rhetoric.
It should be noted again (as it has been previously) that Mark Geragos strenuously objected to the statement made by Hum to the jurors. He was very animated in his objection stating that there was NO SUCH LAW requiring the jurors to vote guilty. I don't recall the response of judge Arnold except that he shut Geragos down and allowed Hum to go on. Judge Arnold's neglect of Cam's right to due process is both shocking and shameful, imo.
I'd like to know what dynamics were in play that caused a judge to thumb his nose at something as fundamental as a man's right to a fair and impartial trial. What was it about this particular case, or was it just standard procedure? It offends the basic structure of our society to see men with so much power abuse it without even batting an eyelash. Perhaps he was just blinded by cynicism.
ronni wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:After the first trial, the two jurors who had voted "involuntary manslaughter" met with Geragos. They said that deliberations were very heated, with the consensus of most of the jurors being murder two. But these two would not go along. So two other jurors voted murder one as a protest.Balderdash! The two who voted Murder One did so as a protest.Would you please explain this?
BTW, the two who were voting involuntary were doing so because, in closing statements, the prosecutor told the jury that, because of the nature of the evidence presented, they HAD to vote guilty to some extent -- they could NOT vote "not guilty".
Balderdash! The two who voted Murder One did so as a protest.
Would you please explain this?
Ken Smith wrote:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction on Murder One. I suspect that this is what happened in the jury box on the first go-round, but Murder Two was eventually offered as a compromise, because not enough people would go along.Balderdash! The two who voted Murder One did so as a protest.
Anyway, the first jury was composed of Oprah-watching Torrance housewives who were taken in by Craig Hum's overpowering emotional appeal during the opening statement (which was largely fashioned out of whole cloth, and had little -- if ANY -- basis in fact). And they made up their minds early on, and just didn't bother listening any more. This time, it's different.
I am also very sorry that Sprocket couldn't be there. 102 temp! Not so good. I hope she is feeling better.
CI: Of course that is why Hayes was testifying! He is still spouting the party line, which is what we expected.
As if your guy doesn't.
I'm disappointed that Sprocket missed the day's testimony, as I think it would have been among the most enlightening days of the trial. But clearly, her absence is understandable:
Sprocket: I'm sorry my notes are so far behind on this case. I was down for several days with a fever of 102. As I'm slowly getting better, I've been swamped with real life responsibilities at home. I missed testimony on August 20th (Wilson Hayes, biomechanical expert) and August 21st.Fortunately, if she catches your expert, we'll get almost the same thing: the cross of an expert is, in essence, the other expert's testimony.
CI: My question is, so what? You have to be able to prove a lot more than the physics of throwing a square box over a cliff!
Not as much as you think. In fact, the jury could get to Murder Two if the accepted the view of your expert without really straining. There's also enough evidence for Murder One -- based on public comments -- but imho, the jury will not go that far without the conclusion that Hayes wins that battle.
Here's the scenario you dread: Cam was a planner. Lauren was frightened of him. He wanted to sign the papers and be done with her; Patty wanted her as her own, and held all the purse strings (and therefore, all the cards). "Did you see the picture of the cliffs in the article? How could any parent allow their child to even go near the cliff?" The expert couldn't PROVE to a CERTAINTY that she slipped (they didn't know for certain where she went off the hill, and couldn't know) ... but it ain't very damned likely. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction on Murder One. I suspect that this is what happened in the jury box on the first go-round, but Murder Two was eventually offered as a compromise, because not enough people would go along.
I don't think they will go there, but they could.
Of course that is why Hayes was testifying! He is still spouting the party line, which is what we expected. My question is, so what? You have to be able to prove a lot more than the physics of throwing a square box over a cliff!
Ken Smith wrote:
I know that you hate me [...]"Hate" you? Why should I hate you? I wish you well. And it is my sincere prayer and desire that you should receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, so that you should partake in eternal life, instead of being condemned to an eternity of torment in hell.
From the Breeze blog:
The simple principle is that in order to get the injuries this girl suffered (backed up by photographs), she had to have made an impact somewhere at a certain speed, which is called "terminal velocity" in physics. Terminal velocity is achieved by being subject to the acceleration due to gravity for a certain amount of time. That means she needs to have been "launched" at a particular upwards angle and have been "airborne" for a certain amount of time to get up to the necessary speed. That, I figure, is why Hayes is testifying. She wouldn't have suffered those injuries if she had slipped and fallen, and she would have had other injuries that were not present if she had slipped and fallen. The laws of physics (g = 9.8m/s^2) are pretty much constant no matter where the launch point was. Brown's in a heap o' trouble.Not in Oregon, according to Ted.
CI: The court will be dark for the next ten days or so while the judge vacations.
That is an EPIC break! That just increased the chances of acquittal by about 30%. The jury is going to forget most of the really bad stuff.
I'm really disappointed that Sprocket couldn't make it, though.
The prosecution rested with Hayes. The defense brought witnesses forward, two of whom witnessed Lauren ahead of Cam between the points (iirc, one along the road, the other on the trail to IP) and had reported that to the investigators very early on. The other was a public defender who had previously represented Cam and had information regarding the case.
The court will be dark for the next ten days or so while the judge vacations.
No, Sprocket was not there.
Was Sprocket in the courtroom for Hayes? I'd like to see an independent rendition of the direct and cross of both expert witnesses ... as I know that Ted couldn't tell the truth with a compass and a road map.
Loretta: "It ain't over 'til it's over" is only uttered by players or fans of a team losing 5-3 in late innings.
More like 15-3. Harris has a chance to pull this off, but he's going to need a better performance than Sprocket has reported heretofore. Team Cam has succeeded in pissing off the judge, and their repeated explosions and undisciplined rhetoric here suggest that their once-unshakable faith in their trial delusion is wearing thin. A winner can afford to be magnanimous; these guys are gripping at the bat.
Ken: under California law as it now stands [...], the indictment was lawful and proper.
Ted: In other words, according to Ken's understanding of California law, it is permissible for a prosecutor to mislead and deceive a grand jury in California. Which, to me, indicates that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board made the CORRECT assessment regarding Ken Smith.
And therefore, your assessment is that both Pat Harris and Mark Geragos are also unfit to be lawyers? After all, it is their understanding, too. If Cam had been my client, and I felt that I could prove that he had been illegally detained, I would have had a duty to file a habeas action on his behalf. That Pat Harris, Mark Geragos, and Mr. Greta sans Substance did not do so is seemingly conclusive evidence that they did not believe that they had a case to make in that regard, and that a federal court might well have sanctioned them under Rule 11.
Busting off remarks like these out of anger is like saying that your wife is fat, ugly, and stupid, and that you married her for the money. I know that you hate me and want to strike out at me for telling you the truth, but you've used this canard so often that regular readers can sing along. Take a couple more shots of Wild Turkey and chill.
"It ain't over 'til it's over" is only uttered by players or fans of a team losing 5-3 in late innings.
Ted: You're no Wilberforce. Wilberforce was a servant of God. Nor are you with Locke. If you were, you would be SUPPORTING Cameron through this outrageous injustice. Instead, you are with those whom Locke wrote against.
Ted, you're hilarious! Didn't your god use Pharoah? What do you study at Bible study -- the sexual practices of homosexuals? With field trips?
Do you know anything about Locke? Have you even read his Second Treatise? Really, Ted! Take a few moments to read this excerpt: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2.../jl/
2ndtr18.htm . The tyrant usurps powers which were not granted to him, such as the power to sit in judgment of one's own case, and uses it for personal advantage. But of course, in your world of outcome-based jurisprudence, you don't have any problem with the Mullarkey Court sitting in judgment of their own case. He who agrees with Ted walks on the side of the angels, no matter how execrable his character or conduct might be.
As near as can be determined, Cam has not suffered an outrageous injustice. Craig Hum has, in apparent good faith, placed facts into evidence sufficient to justify an indictment on first-degree murder charges. That was all he was required to do under law to justify a finding that Cam was to be denied bail. The standard is low and certainly, lower than I would like it to be, but I haven't been a Californian for nearly twenty years, and don't have anything to say about it. The law itself may be an ass, but this was the power given to him under law, and to the grand jury who handed down the indictment and the judge who issued the order denying bail. If the law has been followed -- any errors in the indictment process are legally deemed as "harmless error," as the required facts have been placed into evidence at trial -- how can it ever be said that your precious Camster has suffered an "outrageous injustice?"
As I've said over and over again, there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception" to Ted's Law.
"But I say he's innocent! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!" Really, Ted! Whether he is to be convicted or acquitted is beside the point. The question is whether the State has legal authority to hold him pending a trial on the merits, to prevent him from running off to South America, living as a surf bum under an assumed name using Daddy's money. And whether you want to hear it or not, the answer is yes.
Ken Smith wrote:
under California law as it now stands [...], the indictment was lawful and proper.In other words, according to Ken's understanding of California law, it is permissible for a prosecutor to mislead and deceive a grand jury in California. Which, to me, indicates that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board made the CORRECT assessment regarding Ken Smith.
Ken Smith wrote:
Like Wilberforce before me,You're no Wilberforce. Wilberforce was a servant of God. Nor are you with Locke. If you were, you would be SUPPORTING Cameron through this outrageous injustice. Instead, you are with those whom Locke wrote against.
CI: Ken, step back and take another deep breath. Do you remember the things you have hung your hat on over the years and said very forcefully that "that" is the thing that would seal Cam's fate? I don't have the time to recount the various things, but most of them (if not all) no longer stand up under scrutiny and weren't worth a hill of beans to begin with. Now here you are again professing that "that" is the thing that is going to seal Cam's fate - something entirely different.
Again, can you send me some of those rose-colored glasses? I happen to need a stiff dose of trial delusion this morning.
To the best of my recollection, I haven't said that anything would "seal Cam's fate." In fact, I'm on record saying that acquittal was more likely than not on this go-around, though the prosecution's case appears stronger than anticipated. That having been said, "the jury is in" on the question of whether Cam's civil rights were violated by his protracted pre-trial incarceration. I don't have time to revisit the analysis I provided at the time, but according to Sprocket's most excellent chronicles, Craig Hum has put more than enough factual matter into evidence for the reasonable jury to enable them to convict on first-degree murder (i.o.w., the judge would be in error if he granted j.n.o.v.). Ergo, under California law as it now stands (I have also said that I oppose it on philosophical grounds, as it is insufficient to protect the accused), the indictment was lawful and proper.
It is the sole province of the jury to decide whether to convict; I've made it a point not to take a position regarding Cam's legal guilt or innocence. I wasn't even in the venire; they won't hear what we hear and, despite Sprocket's heroic efforts, I won't hear what they hear. I have no interest in the outcome, apart from curiosity.
CI: Do you remember saying, the cops have no reason to lie only to find out they lied over and over again?
Do you recall the context? Invariably, it was part of a teachable moment, when I was pointing out Ted's hypocrisy. But of course, you are a hypocrite as well, refusing to denounce Ted for his ad hominem attacks on me.
CI: Do you remember the rock?
What you haven't established is whether that was a lie or a faulty recollection on Brothers' part. Cops are human. They make mistakes, and act venally. Patty Brown is as susceptible to faulty recollection as Jon Hans or the AA guy, which is why delay always benefits the defense. It is simply more likely that Jon is telling the truth than Patty is.
CI: It ain't over until it's over.
No one said it was. That having been said, some of the horses have already left the barn. Cam Brown's "math" is downright hilarious: Ugly, fat, and stupid -- Patty Kaldis Brown is the ultimate CASH COW! To say that he married her solely for the money is a colossal understatement, or so it would seem. Bad things tend to come out in court, but this one is enough to send Patty straight to Reno, if she has any sense at all.
Ken, step back and take another deep breath. Do you remember the things you have hung your hat on over the years and said very forcefully that "that" is the thing that would seal Cam's fate? I don't have the time to recount the various things, but most of them (if not all) no longer stand up under scrutiny and weren't worth a hill of beans to begin with. Now here you are again professing that "that" is the thing that is going to seal Cam's fate - something entirely different.
Do you remember saying, the cops have no reason to lie only to find out they lied over and over again? Do you remember the rock? Just relax. It ain't over until it's over.
Ted: I've seen Ken Smith's "math". It's not pretty.
Cam Brown's "math" is downright hilarious: Ugly, fat, and stupid -- Patty Kaldis Brown is the ultimate CASH COW! To say that he married her solely for the money is a colossal understatement, or so it would seem. Bad things tend to come out in court, but this one is enough to send Patty straight to Reno, if she has any sense at all.
To quote Ted, "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
!"
Of course, we all know that you two are fraternal twins ... "ugly, fat, and stupid" seems to run in the family.
Like Wilberforce before me, I am fighting a battle that you don't possess the wit to understand. "[I]t is the unjust judge that is the capital remover of landmarks, when he defineth amiss of lands and property. One soul sentence doth more hurt than many foul examples. For these do but corrupt the stream, the other corrupteth the fountain. So saith Solomon, Fons turbatus, et vena corrupta, est justus cadens in causa sua coram adversario [A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain or a corrupt spring]." Bacon, Essays LVI (On Judicature). "[T]yranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion." Locke, Second Treatise, Sec. 199. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are, according to the Framers, "antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." To cede them without a fight is to disgrace ourselves and enslave our posterity.
CI: Your ad homs, Ken, sound pretty desperate.
So, where is your denunciation of Ted? His are true ad hominem attacks, as they do not address a single statement made, and bear no relevance to The People v. Cameron John Brown. That Patty is fat, ugly, and stupid was Cam's assessment, and it is relevant to that case.
[cross-posted to Loretta's blog to demonstrate your hypocrisy]
Ted: I've seen Ken Smith's "math". It's not pretty. If Ken Smith knew how to do math properly, he would a lawyer by now.
Ted's "math": One must always genuflect before tyrants. Of course, there is ALWAYS a baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception. And when it comes to sucking cock, Ted is reportedly a legend in Los Angeles' gay bookstores. I was as amazed as I was amused when an employee of one of those establishments ID'd our Ted as a regular customer.
Ted: And even if not, he wouldn't be filing all sorts of crazy actions, suing judges and the like.
IOW, Cam won't be suing Judge Arnold, Craig Hum, or anyone else because it is flat-out crazy to stand up to your betters? If Ted didn't spend so much time drinking Sam Adams and a little more reading him, he might find the courage and nobility of our Founding Fathers:
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."You would make a fine Soviet citizen, Comrade Ted! Once again, you prove that stupidity is the signal feature of the KooooooooK Kaldis Klan.
Ken Smith wrote:
Let's do the math.I've seen Ken Smith's "math". It's not pretty. If Ken Smith knew how to do math properly, he would a lawyer by now. And even if not, he wouldn't be filing all sorts of crazy actions, suing judges and the like. As it is, he is the laughingstock of the Colorado court system.
CIIt's nothing more than desperation when all else fails. When you start adding things up, I think it will be pretty clear.
Let's do the math. Based on Sprocket's representations, Craig Hum has placed enough evidence on the record to permit this jury to convict Cam of first-degree murder. As such, the State had a legal right to incarcerate and hold him without bail prior to trial, and his rights were not violated.
Second, Cam waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial, for what even Team Cam admits was a tactical advantage. While the delay was detestable, it was indisputably constitutional.
Six years in the Hotel California: absque damnum injuria. Ted's whine that this was the greatest injustice inflicted by the police since Sacco and Vanzetti: refuted conclusively. The law might be an ass, but it appears to have been followed.
As for what happens next, I haven't a clue and don't particularly care. If the jury acquits, Cam gets to go home to the same old woman he called ugly, fat, and stupid -- that can't be good for their marriage. And six years in the hole has a certain effect on people....
What's left to add? If he beats the rap, it is because he was able to get better representation than the untold thousands who had to make do with an overworked public defender. I can see nothing to celebrate in this affair. Nobody wins.
Honestly, Ken, I'm not concerned about it. It's nothing more than desperation when all else fails. When you start adding things up, I think it will be pretty clear.
CI: Your ad homs, Ken, sound pretty desperate.
Cam is the one telling his friends that Patty is fat and stupid, and unless you posit the theory that they had different fathers (entirely possible), the best first approximation of Patty's appearance is this ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ran...r57/
TED_AUS.jpg ) with dishwater-grey shoulder-length hair. Do you honestly think that the jury won't think of that -- comparing the old maid with his three young hotties -- when Craig Hum claims that Cam married her for her income?
What planet are you living on?
It matters to the case, even more than it did during the last trial. Jon Hans delivered a crushing blow ... well, Pat Harris did, in his cross.
As for Ted being galactically stupid, everyone knows that you think his ass smells of rose petals.
Your ad homs, Ken, sound pretty desperate. Relax.
Wayne: I'm just struck with a deja-vu impression that, upon the jury reading the guilty verdict, Toad will immediately rise and bellow out an objection based on Ken Smith's difficulties with the Colorado Bar Association, and his own claim that he knows things about the now-concluded trial that he is not at liberty to discuss. Won't people please just take him at his word that there's more than meets the eye to this case? Meanwhile, Camoron will be handcuffed, dragged off to prison, screaming "You Fat Bastard!" towards the defense table, but it will be uncertain whether he's directing it at his brother-in-law or his wife.
Ted could give a damn about Camoron. In fact, he might even prefer a guilty verdict -- easier to sell his screenplay.
Ted: And the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board had no basis for making the sort of request from Ken Smith that they did.
In point of fact, they didn't. But then again, you don't know any of the facts. On second thought, that has never stopped you from opening your proverbial pie-hole before....
Ted: There's something to be said for sitting in the courtroom and seeing and hearing the testimony for yourself. Ken Smith hasn't done so,
But Sprocket has, and she's caught all the good parts. Even CAM thinks Patty is ugly, fat, and stupid ... the short definition of a Kaldis. The fact that you won't even put up a photo of them together on "Cam's personal blog" speaks volumes: Even YOU are admitting that she is a carbon-copy of you with dishwater-grey hair. When you have that kind of confirmation, there isn't much need to be in the courtroom -- carrying mirrors to see around the corner so that you don't turn into stone.
Ted: therefore the value of his [ahem] "observations" is what it usually is.
Invariably, more accurate than yours. You are congenitally stupid and absurdly partisan, and not a single prediction you have made has come to pass. I told you what the prosecution's case would be, and my predictions border on prescience. I told you that the case would be close, and the first jury hung. I told you that the expert witnesses didn't matter overmuch, and they didn't. I told you that the jury could have reached depraved heart murder without relying on Dr. Hayes, and the first jury almost did. Where have I been materially wrong?
Right now, it appears that the prosecution's case is stronger than it was on the first go-round, and in your relentless stupidity, you gave them a veritable diamond. Imagine a defense attorney telling a jury that his client was a planner, who ran away from his problems, where it appears that his client planned to put Lauren in danger, and was running away from the problems in his marriage! Geragos might not have been Johnnie Cochrane, but he wouldn't have made that mistake in Jon Hans' cross. If Cam is convicted of murder, you gave Craig Hum the key to his cell.
Two words. Schaden. Freude.
Ken Smith wrote:
Taken together, the witnesses are telling a coherent and plausible story.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! And the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board had no basis for making the sort of request from Ken Smith that they did. Right.
There's something to be said for sitting in the courtroom and seeing and hearing the testimony for yourself. Ken Smith hasn't done so, therefore the value of his [ahem] "observations" is what it usually is. That and a buck & a quarter will get you a ride on the L.A. Metro.
Ken: Again, I cringe, and recall my urgent recommendation that Patty get her ass in decent shape prior to trial.Got any more of those rose-colored glasses, CI? Afraid I'll have to pass on the "electric beer" that goes with 'em.
Yeah, they know who Patty is. And yeah, they are going to do the math on their own. Cam was able to bed a procession of Baywatch Babes younger than him, and then he married some fat, frumpy, stupid woman almost ten years his senior. And he admitted that he married her for her money.
That she's not particularly bright identifies her as a Kaldis.
CI: You sure are gullible. And please note that the witness got the story mixed up and said Cam wanted to have Sarah deported because of the child support issue.
Taken together, the witnesses are telling a coherent and plausible story. By comparison, the claims Cam has made strain credulity well past the normal breaking point. If this were anyone other than Cam, you'd be believing the other side, and we both know it.
For over thirty years, my angel has walked on water. You would never hear me saying what Cam is reported as saying -- ever. Cam's personal website doesn't even have a picture of his wife, which suggests that she looks like Ted with dishwater-grey shoulder-length hair -- thereby corroborating the witness' claim: For Cam, it was a marriage of convenience.
I should mention that Sprocket did a good job. I wouldn't want to do what she does! She misses stuff, but it's not apparent today that it's for lack of trying. Kudos to her. If she gets most of Leslie's testimony and cross, I'll know she has her heart in the right place. If she keeps it up through the defense case, I'll be a fan forever.
Again, I cringe, and recall my urgent recommendation that Patty get her ass in decent shape prior to trial.You sure are gullible. And please note that the witness got the story mixed up and said Cam wanted to have Sarah deported because of the child support issue. Duh.....
Yeah, they know who Patty is. And yeah, they are going to do the math on their own. Cam was able to bed a procession of Baywatch Babes younger than him, and then he married some fat, frumpy, stupid woman almost ten years his senior. And he admitted that he married her for her money.
That she's not particularly bright identifies her as a Kaldis.
Ken
CI: There are some credibility issues as a result. And here you were defending portions of that testimony as though they had some truth in them.
I don't see any serious credibility issues with respect to the witnesses who actually seem to matter in this case, as they are all painting a coherent narrative.
Ted Kaldis tells lies as normally as most people breathe. That doesn't seem to trouble you.
CI: Something very profound did happen. A child died. A child died in a most horrific and tragic way.
Something that would have elicited a torrent of tears in a man who cried when his GF aborted a fetus. Odd, that.
Sprocket:
PH: Well, this is the second time he's done this. [...] (Regarding the relationship with his wife.) Cameron Brown supposedly called his wife fat. Cameron Brown supposedly told him Patty wasn't very smart. [...] It's (obvious?) it has no bearing on what happened at Inspiration Point.Another correct ruling, and another brutal witness admission:
(I think my notes are Harris continuing...)
PH: The purpose of the testimony of this witness was his emotion. [...] That he wasn't going to get into, "Oh, he was bipolar, or he said she was fat and not very smart."
(Bipolar? Interesting.) ...
JP: The financial (aspect) you are certainly available to explore. I'm not going to allow evidence use of prejorative words, (Cal. Evidence Code) 352. [...] Finances, that can be established on it's own. [...] No one is required to discover every single words. Discovery is not meant to discover every single word by a witness. [...] Mark of a good attorney is to inquire, follow up. (I find) no violation; no bad faith.
The witness is asked if he ever met the defendant's wife, about ten times. He knew the defendant and Patty Brown got married.Again, I cringe, and recall my urgent recommendation that Patty get her ass in decent shape prior to trial.
CH: Did they get married pretty quickly after (they) met?
DB: I think so. I don't know (exactly when they met?).
CH: Did the defendant ever say why he married Patty Brown?
DB: For a lot of money. [...] She had a lot of money.
Yeah, they know who Patty is. And yeah, they are going to do the math on their own. Cam was able to bed a procession of Baywatch Babes younger than him, and then he married some fat, frumpy, stupid woman almost ten years his senior. And he admitted that he married her for her money.
That she's not particularly bright identifies her as a Kaldis.
I remember the words of the Markowitz boy's mother who couldn't bring herself to cry until several years after he was brutally murdered. She didn't understand it anymore than anyone else did. Jesse James Hollywood took her precious son from her and she couldn't shed a tear. And she wasn't even being attacked as having had something to do with it! She didn't even cry when she was alone. Not until years later.
There are a number of people who will tell you the same thing, but I'm sure you aren't interested in their stories.
Cam did cry, however. That's all I will say for now.
In this case, there is a disconnect. Imagine crying over the loss of a fetus, but not crying over the loss of a living, breathing child you have held in your arms. Something profound had to have happened here, and what it is may well determine the outcome of this case.Something very profound did happen. A child died. A child died in a most horrific and tragic way.
Yes, in some respects that could be true. No regrets, however. I think we said you could not rely on that GJ testimony. There are some credibility issues as a result. And here you were defending portions of that testimony as though they had some truth in them. Gosh darn it. They didn't.
CI: Ken, the Free Cam Brown website is full of well-researched information. That seems to be a problem for you, and equally for the prosecutor, since he changed his case substantially to address our concerns. It did more than serve it's purpose.
In short, you helped Craig Hum strengthen his case. If that was its purpose, then it has served it admirably.
CI: It's unfortunate that some might try to belittle Cam because they can't imagine someone who actually cared. He cried over the loss of a fetus. Can you imagine the torment he felt over the loss of his living, breathing, beautiful child, Lauren? If you can only imagine what your reaction would be, you can't judge anyone else. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
In this case, there is a disconnect. Imagine crying over the loss of a fetus, but not crying over the loss of a living, breathing child you have held in your arms. Something profound had to have happened here, and what it is may well determine the outcome of this case.
Loretta's done the work here, so I'll just steal it with the usual thanks:
Conversation preceeding witness (from Sprocket):This is why Jon Hans' testimony hits so hard, and why Ted's irrepressible stupidity may well end up costing Cam his freedom. Cam is a planner, who has a tendency to run from his problems. Patty controlled the purse-strings, and basically owned him. While Cam could have given Lauren up, Patty wanted a family, and couldn't have one of her own. Cam took her up there in accordance with a plan. That is the People's case. And whether you want to hear it or not, it is a damn good one.
CH: The relationship of the defendant with his wife. [...] The people's position that it was the wife who wanted to get custody. Because this was the motivating factor, for him to murder Lauren. [...] IT goes to the nature of their relationship. [...] They had money (issues?). Patty Brown had the money; all the assets. All the real estate. All the money. [...] The nature of their relationship. At the time of the murder, the defendant had nine dollars in his (checking?) account. [...] She controlled everything. She controlled the money. [...] And one of our (conclusions?) was he married her for her money. [...] So the nature of their relationship, it's a very important (motive?) of this case.
What is Team Cam's case? In the words of Steve Miller,
Billy Mac is a detective down in TexasIn short, they pursued Cam too doggedly ... as if it is somehow a bad thing for detectives to follow a hunch. While the forensic work left a lot to be desired, the rest of the case looks strong.
You know he knows just exactly what the facts is
He ain't gonna let those two escape justice
He makes his livin' off the people's taxes....
Ken, the Free Cam Brown website is full of well-researched information. That seems to be a problem for you, and equally for the prosecutor, since he changed his case substantially to address our concerns. It did more than serve it's purpose. Sorry that bothers you so much.
No court today. Apparently a juror problem, it is rescheduled to resume on Thursday.
CI, the only sentences missing from your post are "Once Upon A Time" and "they all lived happily ever after."
Loretta said
Obviously, the way Brown catted around for however many years as a bachelor, it would not be surprising if he had fathered a few kids. It was certainly not outside the realm, in fact, it was pretty damn likely.I don't think this is part of Cam's lifestye as testified to in the trial. In fact, Cam was known to have long-term relationships that mattered to him a great deal. The one child we do know about caused him great pain when contemplating the loss. JD testified that they cried together and Cam DID NOT want to have the abortion. We also know that Cam did not treat his relationships casually, nor did he go around impregnating people without caring about consequence. He used precaution as a habit, and never walked away from his obligations. This is the kind of person Cam was known to be and what was testified to during the prosecutor's case. He apparently never forgot about the first child, and cared enough about Sarah and her pregnancy to seek counseling so that they could make a good decision and deal with it responsibly. That's a far sight more than we see from others who are far more unwilling to take responsibility or attempt to do the right thing. Cam was known for these traits because it was consistent in his life. That is one reason he had so many long-term and meaningful friendships.
It's unfortunate that some might try to belittle Cam because they can't imagine someone who actually cared. He cried over the loss of a fetus. Can you imagine the torment he felt over the loss of his living, breathing, beautiful child, Lauren? If you can only imagine what your reaction would be, you can't judge anyone else. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
CI: The internet is hardly the place for anyone to be seeking the truth, since we have all seen how it is mangled, manipulated, speculated upon and otherwise trashed.
You mean, like the Free Cam Brown website? Practice what you preach, and take the damn thing down.
CI: This is about the real lives of real people that I hope hasn't been altered in any way due to the behavior of people on the internet who have no real connection. If anything, perhaps the goodness within all of us will cause us to stand back and take notice of the impact we may inadvertently (or intentionally) have upon the lives of others. Maybe we can all learn something from it, take a deep breath and do better. Let's all hope the truth in this case or any other has not been tainted in any way because of wild rumors and speculations found on the internet.
I don't know what we have to "learn" here. The Internet is in substance no different from the traditional news media, apart from the fact that anyone is able to create his or her own printing press. Claims are made, claims are tested. Ted's patently bizarre claims have failed in the court of public opinion, as well they should have. This has had an indisputably positive impact on the trial of Cam Brown, in the sense that Ted's actions have prompted a potential witness to come forward, and provide the jury with more complete information.
People have an inherent responsibility to sift the wheat from the chaff, and wild speculations like the one that Craig Hum was prosecuting Cam's case to gain advantage in a phantom run for the office of district attorney, or that the RPV city fathers were putting heat on L.A. authorities to put pressure on Cam in a civil suit that was already barred by the statute of limitations deserve to be laughed at. Moreover, if this purported "love child" could be found, it would actually help Cam's case, in the sense that it would tend to prove that he could father a child and walk away from the situation. Again, it is hard to see where the problem is.
CI: I would suggest that this entire subject is just dropped. There is apparently a lot of water running under the bridge and far too many speculative and nasty comments to count. How any of it affected memories at this point in time isn't something any of us need to be arguing about. It's up to the attorneys to sort through it all and the jury to make sense of it.
As long as there are sensational trials, people will talk about them. It is absurd to suggest that Jon Hans' memory was muddled by what he read on the 'Net. If anything, our discussions led him to grasp the significance of a conversation which would otherwise remain forgotten. Also, it is our duty to ensure that the justice system works as designed ... as every one of us may be forced at one point to stand upright into the wind.
I have faith that Cam's jury will make sense of all of this; they did their level best to do so in the first trial. While my position appears to be a distinct minority (the vote on PYSIH is 343-4, and it is a veritable certainty that the four "no" votes came from Team Cam), this case is in my mind literally too close to call.
I would suggest that this entire subject is just dropped. There is apparently a lot of water running under the bridge and far too many speculative and nasty comments to count. How any of it affected memories at this point in time isn't something any of us need to be arguing about. It's up to the attorneys to sort through it all and the jury to make sense of it. The internet is hardly the place for anyone to be seeking the truth, since we have all seen how it is mangled, manipulated, speculated upon and otherwise trashed. This is about the real lives of real people that I hope hasn't been altered in any way due to the behavior of people on the internet who have no real connection. If anything, perhaps the goodness within all of us will cause us to stand back and take notice of the impact we may inadvertently (or intentionally) have upon the lives of others. Maybe we can all learn something from it, take a deep breath and do better. Let's all hope the truth in this case or any other has not been tainted in any way because of wild rumors and speculations found on the internet.
Well, I went slogging through some old threads at USENET from 2005 and I don't have the time or desire to continue to look for that thread that related to the 20-yr old Cam Brown. If you insist on blaming me for "speculating" about a child Cam might have had (with the same name, and that was mentioned on an obscure thread on USENET that nobody could find at gunpoint unless they were already following the conversation and that cannot be proven to have had any bearing, whatsoever, on this trial), then I challenge you to prove that I did this.
The burden is yours.
I remember when some people were doing research on Cam Brown and court records from the past (and I was curious about this alleged custody matter, that I don't believe ever saw the lighyt of day) and someone (maybe CG, maybe someonen else) found an arrest record or court record of another person named Cameron Brown who was in his 20s and could have, biologically, been Cam's kid. It wasn't I who tracked it down nor I who brought it up. I may have remarked on it. It was before the first trial, and this conversation took place on USENET. I'd be hard pressed to track it down, but if I happen to stumble upon the exact thread, I'll bring the liink. I'd be really surprised if that's what Jon Hans is referring to, but hey, maybe he was lurking at USENET!
And if he was lurking at USENET, guess who else he got a big taste of?
Obviously, the way Brown catted around for however many years as a bachelor, it would not be surprising if he had fathered a few kids. It was certainly not outside the realm, in fact, it was pretty damn likely. I never cared one way or the other, and it had no bearing on this case unless he had abandoned another child and it could be proved (which would work in his favor, actually, not against him), or that there had been a string of unplanned pregnancies resulting in abortions, which looks to be closer to the truth.
Nevertheless, once again Patty is projecting her own insecurities, judgments and morality onto me, thinking that if I found a child Cam had in the past that I would crow, email all my friends, and point it out to everyone as evidence of his being a deadbeat. Please. As if I care about other people's unplanned pregnancies. Unlike you two, I'm not a collossal hypocrite.
I expected him to be a sperm donor. I have no illusions about him. I couldn't care less if he had as many kids with disparate women as an NBA All-Star. We were researching for this alleged custody matter (which was never on the books), and other financial information that would point to MOTIVE.
That's it. Make of it what you will, but I'm still not the bad guy in this story.
CI: Loretta, you didn't contact Sarah, but it's been stated that your partner did. Repeatedly, in fact. And you yourself have admitted to providing additional information to Jon, and Sprocket's record mentions that you wrote emails referring to Cam in very derogatory terms.
And the harm is? CG had every legal right to approach Sarah and Loretta, every legal right to tell Jon what she thought of Cam. Jon Hans is a fact witness, whose duty begins and ends with his truthful testimony about events related to the purported murder.
Ted: Well, at least you have the good sense not to get involved in that.
If you had showed even a glimmer of good sense, you would have kept your enormous gullet shut about this case. But of course, we all know that you have never been able to practice what you preach.
Ken Smith wrote:
Case Insider wrote:Well, at least you have the good sense not to get involved in that.Ken contacted witnesses too? I'd rather doubt it.For the record, I did not initiate contact with anyone likely to be a witness in the case. [...]
That's just not something I'm inclined to get involved in.
anony: For Pete's sake, he is remembering a conversation about a child that never existed. Loretta speculated about a supposed child, Jon read the speculation and thought it was real, and then had a memory of a conversation about that non-existent child. It is crazy!
You have to make allowances for Patty's desperation, Loretta. She is looking for anything to hang onto, and the thought that her actions and desires might have been the catalyst for this must be mortifying.
You have to be the villain .... because she can't be.
anony: It wasn't you Loretta? Somebody found a Cameron Brown who was about the same age as JD's child would have been, if it had been born, and speculated "could this be Cam's child."
It's certainly news to me. Loretta is usually pretty good at not taking the evidence further than it realistically ought to go. The ladies have been considerably more responsible than the walrus.
anony (Patty): He testified about a conversation that never happened. His memory is skewed. I believe his memory is playing tricks on him, causing him to remember things in such a way to make him feel okay about his position; and that is skewing his memory. I don't believe he is making things up; he believes he is testifying truthfully. Nevertheless, his testimony is not true.
The censor's knife strikes again! Looks like my last post on this point was too close to the mark. I will present the argument again, and copy it to Loretta's blog so that everyone can see what you feel the need to hide.
First and foremost, you can't make the above claim without admitting that you are Patty Kaldis Brown. There are only three people who would know whether such a conversation took place; Jon Hans has testified to his recollection, and Cam is still languishing in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California. You might as well just drop the pretense of anonymity, as it serves no useful purpose. If it is obvious to me, it is even more obvious to Craig Hum.
If it wasn't for the fact that Jon's testimony was corroborated by that of the babysitter, the searches and the voodoo kit, I might be inclined to dismiss it, and I doubt strenuously that Hum would have even elicited it. But as it stands, five strands of independent testimony point to the apparent fact that you had designs of making Lauren your own. I forgot Sarah's testimony that you were planning to move to NoCal to "start a family," as related by Mark Geragos in the 995 motion; being Ted's twin, it would have taken nothing short of a medical miracle for you to have a child of your own. Given that the only evidence you can offer in rebuttal is that you claim that the conversation didn't happen and that Jon must have been confused and that unlike him, you have an obvious motive to lie, the reasonable person is going to believe him.
Frankly, it doesn't matter overmuch; all that matters is what the jury believes. All they are going to hear is the inherently plausible testimony of two independent witnesses who have absolutely nothing to gain by lying, buttressed by Sarah. Unless I miss my guess, you will not be testifying in his defense, mostly on the grounds that the jury will almost certainly discount your testimony because you have a motive to lie, and Harris knows it. If Cam goes on the stand, it is tantamount to a confession that Harris believes that the case is lost, and that he needs to throw a Hail Mary pass. And again, I don't think Harris wants to open either of you up to cross-examination.
What Jon may have read on the 'Net has no logical bearing on the question of what he recalled of the alleged conversation, apart from the fact that it helped him to understand its significance. That so much was placed on the 'Net about this case is entirely the fault of your out-of-control brother; that Jon was persuaded at all was almost certainly due to the laughable quality of his arguments. There is a reason why the Ramsays hired a P.R. firm to do their talking for them, and why most criminal defense attorneys have the common sense to insist that the client's family STFU. And that brain-dead oaf has the temerity to lecture others on the virtue of "common sense?"
I respectfully disagree with Loretta; Jon was huge. Craig Hum put Jon Hans on the stand for a reason, and given the short duration of his testimony on direct (iirc, Ted put it at less than ten minutes), this is the only reason he testified. The law does not require that the prosecution show a motive, but Jon gave it to them in spades. That he was a close friend who wrote a passionate testimonial made it that much more credible. Jon was like Ted Kaczynski's brother, turning state's evidence. It took an abundance of character and probably, more than a little prompting by everyone's asshole-of-the-century, acting like an asshole.
And wouldn't that be the ultimate irony? Ted, providing the prosecution with the key to locking up Cam for the rest of his life? I won't say it will happen, but it sure could.
I never speculated about a supposed child. You must have me confused with someone else. But, then again, you don't read anywhere else, and are now going by who-knows-what hearsay or rumor, so whatever you happen to think I wrote, you are mistaken.It wasn't you Loretta? Somebody found a Cameron Brown who was about the same age as JD's child would have been, if it had been born, and speculated "could this be Cam's child." Jon Hans saw it and thought it was refering to Cam's real child. As a results he believes this child exists. Does this ring a bell?
I never speculated about a supposed child. You must have me confused with someone else. But, then again, you don't read anywhere else, and are now going by who-knows-what hearsay or rumor, so whatever you happen to think I wrote, you are mistaken. Again. Also.
All that matters is that he testified truthfully on the stand as to the conversation in question.He testified about a conversation that never happened. His memory is skewed. I believe his memory is playing tricks on him, causing him to remember things in such a way to make him feel okay about his position; and that is skewing his memory. I don't believe he is making things up; he believes he is testifying truthfully. Nevertheless, his testimony is not true.
For Pete's sake, he is remembering a conversation about a child that never existed. Loretta speculated about a supposed child, Jon read the speculation and thought it was real, and then had a memory of a conversation about that non-existent child. It is crazy!
Wayne said it so well, comment is unnecessary:
Ken's and Loretta's analysis appears to be exactly correct, as usual - Jon Hans has much to lose, and nothing to gain, by coming forward with his testimony against Camoron. Toad, having alienated Hans by refusing to take down Jon's letter of former support, which no longer reflects his actual position given the doubts raised by Grand Jury testimony and analysis read on the various blogs, is now in the significantly embarrassing position of quite possibly indirectly being a big factor in an eventual guilty verdict for the brother-in-law he worked so hard to defend.
Toad's protestations on the KKK Blob are entirely predictable: People should not change their minds based on opinions they read on the Internet, but the express, solitary purpose of his own "Free Cam Brown" pity-party is to get people to change their minds after reading an opinion on the Internet. It's not exactly a breaking news flash that Toad is such a flaming hypocrite.
Two words: Schaden. Freude.
anony: Jon Hans put aside his own personal experience in order to take the position he is now taking. That puts him in a class all his own.
Hardly. Ted is the clown in that class.
anony: Even with Cam's actions he was willing to testify for him at the preliminary hearing. It was after he read the stuff on the internet that he changed his mind.
Look, I can't help it if your brother is incorrigibly stupid. He brought the case to USENET, and made some of the most ludicrous arguments in history in a bizarre attempt to paint Cam as being unfairly targeted by seemingly everyone in Los Angeles, whether they had a motive or not.
CI: Ken contacted witnesses too? I'd rather doubt it.
For the record, I did not initiate contact with anyone likely to be a witness in the case. Cynical Hedonist is not, to the best of my knowledge, a witness in this case. Patty and Ted are not likely to testify. To the best of my recollection, Jon Hans never contacted me -- nor has anyone else who might have appeared on the witness list -- as Loretta was the one with the GJ transcripts.
That's just not something I'm inclined to get involved in.
anony (Patty): Not what Jon said on the stand. He said it was reading the GJ transcript and other sites on the internet that changed his mind.
Have you actually read some of the tripe Ted was writing? Ted did incalculable damage to Cam's case and yes, he actually did influence a potential witness with his unbridled (and often, completely unhinged) lunacy. The arguments that persuaded everyone else persuaded him. Exactly why is this a surprise?
All that matters is that he testified truthfully on the stand as to the conversation in question. He is a fact witness -- not an expert witness.
CI: At this point I am feeling very bad for Jon because he was manipulated, imo. Everything becomes very clear when the lights go on.
The lights may actually have gone on for Jon. To believe in Cam's innocence, you have to believe in a lot of pretty improbable things when, taken together, are almost as probable as the existence of pixie dust. Jon Hans isn't tasked with the monumental decision of putting a man away for the rest of his life, and doesn't have to find Cam guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. All he had to do was come to the conclusion that it was highly probable that Cam was guilty, and anyone who had read Ted's blather on the 'Net and how it was so thoroughly savaged and justifiably ridiculed could come to that conclusion without straining.
Just look at the People You'll See In Hell blog poll: 327 readers concluded that "Cameron Brown [Is] An Evil, Greedy Prick Who Deserves To Burn In Hell Forever," and four members of Team Cam voted against the proposition. When the only defense the defense seems to have is that half of Los Angeles is part of a conspiracy ostensibly masterminded by Vladimir Putin, and that Newton's Laws don't work, that's going to happen more often than not.
Ken: Jon Hans claimed under oath to have been relating a conversation he had with Cam and Patty.
Ted: A conversation which, in fact, NEVER HAPPENED!
One is reminded of a famous scene in A Few Good Men:
Kaffee: What possible good could come from putting Jessep on the stand?Hell, Ted was blind, stinking drunk the three years they taught law at law school! He hasn't learned a damned thing throughout this process, thereby proving that while ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.
Jo: He told Kendrick to order the Code Red.
Kaffee: He did?! Why didn't you say so!? That's great! And of course you have proof of that.
Jo: I--
Kaffee: Ah, I keep forgetting: You were sick the day they taught law at law school.
So, exactly how do you prove your claim to the jury, Ted? If there were three persons privy to the conversation, they would be Jon, Patty, and Cam. Patty could testify, but given her many outbursts in the courtroom, that would be like handling nitroglycerine. Moreover, the voodoo kit comes up in cross, and they bring in experts in rebuttal to testify as to its significance. Besides, unlike Jon Hans, she has an obvious motive to lie. Cam could testify, but that would practically be an open admission by Harris that he has lost the case, and he needs to throw a Hail Mary. Even Scott Peterson stayed off the stand.
You believe this to be true because you believe your sister, and she has denied it. Not a tenable position, Ted.
Incidentally, Jon Hans made up his mind before July 25, 2006, long before the majority of the entries and comments to Cam Brown Trial blog were written. Here is his email to Ted Kaldis dated July 25, 2006:
To: kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:27 PM
Subject: Ted, Please remove my letter. Thank You.
Ted, Please remove my letter of support for Mr. Brown. I have reviewed all of the abundant information that is out there related to Lauren's murder. If I had been able to read this stuff all of those years ago I never would have written that letter, Nov. 2005' . I wrote you a few times before requesting that you remove my letter and I can understand your reluctance to do so, but you have to come to grips with the fact that I think/believe/feel that Mr. B. is a socio-pathic child murderer, and I don't want to be associated with him in any way. ....Please take my letter off now !
~~~~~~~~~
And this was Ted's response:
Your letter is NOT coming off right now. You have been duped. If you have been reading news accounts, you have NOT gotten the spirit of what has been presented in the courtroom. This case will soon be over, culminating with, hopefully, the acquittal of Cameron Brown. Once that happens, the website will be taken down.
You believe WRONGLY what you believe about Cameron Brown. It seems to me that you are a very weak-minded individual who is easily deceived and manipulated. Lauren was NOT "murdered". Lauren died as the result of a VERY tragic accident.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
~~~~~~~~~~
This is already documented and admitted as evidence in the current trial.
Ted also wrote to Jon about (presumably) us on the Cam Brown blog:
"Those are psychos on that website you are posting on. When they are
finished with you and you are no longer useful to them, they will chew you
up and spit you out."
~~~~~~~~~~~
I submit that Kaldis's treatment of Jon was the catalyst for him to come forward.
CI, as has been demonstrated repeatedly (and recently), you are once again wrong. But, hey, believe whatever you want, it's no skin off my nose. Again, you cannot make these statements claiming they are fact when you also claim that you don't read other blogs, you have not read my blog, Ted says he doesn't read my blog, and you have no first-hand information of what you accuse me or CG of doing.
So, either you are wildly speculating based on 2nd- or 3rd-hand discussions about what I wrote, or you and the Kaldis twins are lying about what sites you visit. And, even if you were lying about visiting my site and can cite where you read any of what you accuse me, you are still wrong in your characterization of it.
CI, all you do is make up new stuff to defend Cam's position, even when what you claim can be proven factually incorrect (or pure-t fantasy, in some cases).
Loretta, you didn't contact Sarah, but it's been stated that your partner did. Repeatedly, in fact. And you yourself have admitted to providing additional information to Jon, and Sprocket's record mentions that you wrote emails referring to Cam in very derogatory terms. At this point I am feeling very bad for Jon because he was manipulated, imo. Everything becomes very clear when the lights go on. The new memories that have popped up after 9 years make more sense now. I'm still stunned by all of this.
If the shoe were on the other foot and Hans had said that he supported Cam as a friend, then read the GJ transcript, changed his mind, had doubts, read the blogs that reinforced his doubts and then read this blog and other posts on USENET that explained the defense's position and then said he changed his mind BACK to his original convictions that Cam was innocent, then nobody here would be casting aspersions. Nope. You'd all feel quite proud of your accomplishment.
Regardless, you cannot have one standard for blogs and USENET posts that are biased toward the prosecution and another for your own biased interpretations here and elsewhere. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. I, for one, am not going to be your scapegoat. I disagree with Ken that Jon's testimony is all that probative of anything. I could be wrong. Time will tell.
And, for the record, I have never contacted anyone proactively, I have never had any direct contact with the victim's mother. I responded to requests for copies of the transcript and to various emails that were sent to me. I was neither over-zealous nor proactive in this case.
Third, when it comes to Cam saying nothing - you mean Cam's attorney told him he wasn't allowed to tell his friends (or anyone else) that he didn't kill Lauren?That's right. After the worst day of Cam's life the cops accused him of murder. Cam was pretty spooked. His father brought him to his attorney who told him "say nothing to no one." The attorney said that even if he said the most innocuous thing, it can be twisted around and turned into something else. If he said nothing to no one there is nothing to twist around, so SAY NOTHING. Cam took that advice to heart and said absolutely nothing to no one.
The GJ transcript and widely available analysis simply solidified it.Not what Jon said on the stand. He said it was reading the GJ transcript and other sites on the internet that changed his mind. He did not say Cam's actions made him doubt Cam and the GJ transcript solidified it. Even with Cam's actions he was willing to testify for him at the preliminary hearing. It was after he read the stuff on the internet that he changed his mind.
Geragos didn't come into the picture until after Cam was in jail. It was an accident that over-zealous investigators were using all means at their disposal to twist into a murder. They taped, tapped, set-up and intimidated. Cam was instructed to say nothing and he didn't.
Sorry - I edited my previous before I posted and I apparently didn't re-check it well enough. Loretta provided the GJ transcript. Ken & Loretta provided analysis both on Usenet & the blogs.
WRT it sounding vindictive that he testified? Not at all. He originally thought A, then changed his mind. When he asked Ted to remove the letter that outlined A, and Ted refused, it sounds to me like he wanted to make sure his real opinion was out there. Hum was in contact with him and he agreed to testify. It's my *speculation* that he wouldn't have testified had Ted simply removed the letter when asked. I obviously have no inside knowledge one way or the other - I'm on the other side of the country and know none of the parties personally.
Third, when it comes to Cam saying nothing - you mean Cam's attorney told him he wasn't allowed to tell his friends (or anyone else) that he didn't kill Lauren? He wasn't allowed to say 'there's no way I did what they're accusing me of'? If so, I hope he has a malpractice case filed against Geragos, for not allowing him to profess his innocence of this crime. He didn't even say THAT much. Not even 'I didn't do it'. Nothing. Heck, even on TeeVee the accused professes their innocence! I have a hard time believing that a defense attorney told Cam he wasn't allowed to say 'I didn't do it'. Judge Judy time. If it doesn't make sense, it didn't happen - and THAT doesn't make sense.
Unless you can explain it in a way that DOES make sense? Can you explain why you think Geragos would've told him he wasn't allowed to profess his innocence?
Heck, even if my attorney told me to say nothing, I wouldn't assume that 'nothing' meant I couldn't say "it wasn't me, man!"
BTW, Jobeth, are you suggesting that someone who is told by his attorney to say nothing should do otherwise in order to satisfy the needs of a supposed friend? Are you suggesting that silence (especially over a jailhouse phone) is indicative of guilt?
Jobeth said:
However, the fact that this potential witness for the defense would likely NEVER have become a witness for the prosecution if *Ted* had just done what was asked by the witness and removed the letter is completely and totally glossed over.That actually makes it sound vindictive.
Ken contacted witnesses too? I'd rather doubt it. I don't think there is any need to say more on the subject.
So...basically...a witness who was never actually a witness (because of a prelim that never happened and a change by the ultimate defense counsel) approached Loretta and Ken and asked for a copy of the GJ transcipt, which was provided to him the same as it was to ANYONE, and they shouldn't have supplied this publically-available information because they should've known in advance that when the re-trial came up that this never-called potential defense witness would become a witness for the prosecution.
Is that about right?
However, the fact that this potential witness for the defense would likely NEVER have become a witness for the prosecution if *Ted* had just done what was asked by the witness and removed the letter is completely and totally glossed over.
I guess I'm missing the logic, here.
You know what the first thing neighbors generally say after a murderer is discovered in their midst? 'But they were such a nice person, we had no idea!'
Apparently, Cam's own actions and inactions led to Hans changing his mind. The GJ transcript and widely available analysis simply solidified it. He asked Cam about Lauren's death, and Cam refused to say anything. Showed no sadness. No anger at being accused of killing her. He just refused to talk. You don't think THAT had anything to do with raising the specter of doubt in his mind?
How is it that Ted gets a pass for spouting off about this case and providing HIS analysis in Misc.Legal long before there was every any trial date set, but Loretta and Ken are pilloried for providing an alternative analysis of the readily available public data?
Presumably with tongue-in-cheek, Anonymous jousts:
Whew! Well that's a relief. I'd hate to think this trial was tainted by over-zealous sleuths moving into the real lives of the witnesses (potential or otherwise).
Well, it could be argued (rather convincingly) that Ted Kaldis, an over-zealous brother-in-law with a big stake in the outcome of this case, has done more to taint this case since first introducing it to USENET in 2002 than anything I or any unrelated "sleuth" ever could in a million years.
"These theories have been published on the internet since 2006, over 3 years ago. Nothing new. They've been available to everyone and anyone since before the first trial was over and obviously loooong before this trial. So, your accusations of "sudden aspects of the case" are ridiculous, as are any accusations of "witness tampering."
loretta"
Whew! Well that's a relief. I'd hate to think this trial was tainted by over-zealous sleuths moving into the real lives of the witnesses (potential or otherwise).
Why wasn't he called at trial, if he was going to be called for a prelim?Different attorneys. Cam's trial attorney put a new witness list together than the witness list the first attorney was going to use for the prelim. We don't know exactly why the trial attorney chose to not use Jon Hans, but we do know that he preferred to use local witnesses where he could. If he could get the same testimony from a local witness rather than bring someone from CO, he preferred to go that way. I believe he replaced the testimony Jon Hans was going to give with the testimony of a local friend. The local friend was not scheduled to testify at the prelim.
"anonymous" claims:
It's no coincidence that they pursue contact and a relationship with sarah and a prime witness and suddenly aspects of the case take a turn toward theories born on the internet. This is an interesting development.
These theories have been published on the internet since 2006, over 3 years ago. Nothing new. They've been available to everyone and anyone since before the first trial was over and obviously loooong before this trial. So, your accusations of "sudden aspects of the case" are ridiculous, as are any accusations of "witness tampering."
"prime witness"
Was Hans on the original trial witness list? He doesn't appear to have been called, so how could he have been a "prime witness"? Why wasn't he called at trial, if he was going to be called for a prelim?
I am also shocked. The depth of infiltration into the real life by internet sleuths seems like a very dangerous little game. It's no coincidence that they pursue contact and a relationship with sarah and a prime witness and suddenly aspects of the case take a turn toward theories born on the internet. This is an interesting development.
I'm pretty sure Pat Harris knows about the exchanges between Jon and me, and if he had a problem with it, I'm easy to find.
If people who were once convinced Cam was guilty come here and your information convinces them to change their mind, does that minimize their reasoning or does that impeach their testimony because their minds were changed by stuff YOU POSTED on the Internet?Not if they never knew Cam. If they are not disregarding their personal experience in favor of what they read on the internet, then no the same standard does not apply. Jon Hans put aside his own personal experience in order to take the position he is now taking. That puts him in a class all his own.
Dm, all of that will be talked about in time. I hope Sprocket is able to provide some of it for you, but she did miss Dr. Berkowitz. Let's just say that the points were made.
CI. Lots of holes in the Sprocket coverage. I’m curious how the Berkowitz testimony went and how the defense dealt with the fact that her conclusions were based on inaccurate and misleading information provided by Smith and Leslie. And what about Chinwah and all the irregularities surrounding the delayed autopsy report that used Berkowitz as a determining factor?
I think the term might be "witness tampering". Writing something on the internet and actively pursuing that particular person seem somehow very different to me. But thanks for the explanation.
Hans wasn't a witness at the time and never appeared at the first trial, so your shock is misguided. I haven't heard from him in years and if he was influenced by anything I gave him or anything I wrote, it's a free country and that's how the internet works. Someone could just as easily make the claim that your Internet postings and the voluminous information Ted Kaldis posted on USENET was just as influential. You can't have it both ways - that my work online tainted a witness and that yours has not. It's absurd.
What an interesting revelation. I'm sitting here in shock because of what has been posted here. That an internet person would actively work to influence a witness --- I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I'm shocked.
Loretta wrote:
Isn't it ironic that Team Cam is impeaching Jon HansJon Hans impeached himself. He had written an impassioned letter in support of Cameron which illustrated how deep his supposed friendship went. That he should cast away such a long-time friendship on the basis of the nonsense written by you and your chums only serves to thoroughly discredit him as a reliable witness.
Case Insider wrote:
I will say that the GJ was given much information which held no water and was eventually dropped or changed. That was predictable because the misinformation was so transparent under scrutiny. If Jon Hans or anyone else hung their hat on that testimony they are fools.And now another FOOL (Ken Smith) is hanging his hat on the testimony of the other fool (Jon Hans).
In fact, I told Ken many years ago that he was a FOOL for trying to sue the court, and that his suit would go nowhere. Ken didn't appreciate that -- and that is the source of all the vitriol Ken posts against me. Ken has a habit of silencing his opponents under an onslaught of abuse. He's found that it doesn't work on everyone. But then, he has no other way of countering the observation that suing the court was in fact a boneheaded move.
Ken Smith wrote:
Jon Hans claimed under oath to have been relating a conversation he had with Cam and Patty.A conversation which, in fact, NEVER HAPPENED!
Isn't it ironic that Team Cam is impeaching Jon Hans because he changed his mind about a lifelong friend because (as Team Cam claims) of information he read on the Internet, yet Team Cam has been using the Internet virtually ceaselessly since Ted Kaldis began discussing this case on USENET however many years ago. Plus, then Team Cam joined various message boards under various handles to defend Brown or clarify information.
Never mind the existence of this blog and the hundreds (thousands) of comments here over the years, and your serious investment of time and energy. I know what it takes, and this is no small project.
If you are going to minimize the value of information Hans obtained on the Internet (and some of that was not on the Internet, some of it was stuff I sent him personally that was not published online), but yet have been using the Internet to present your case and defend Brown, what are people supposed to do with the information they read here? If people who were once convinced Cam was guilty come here and your information convinces them to change their mind, does that minimize their reasoning or does that impeach their testimony because their minds were changed by stuff YOU POSTED on the Internet?
You people make no sense.
What Jon did wasn't easy, on many levels.Perhaps not, but what caused him to do it was stupid. He admitted in cross examination that he changed his mind about Cam because of what he read on the internet.
My guess is that Jon Hans didn't want to come forward, out of a seemingly justified fear that his testimony might be what puts Cam behind bars for the rest of his life.Jon Hans did come forward sooner - as Cam's biggest supporter. He was scheduled to testify for Cam at the preliminary hearing. But Hum kept stalling the start of the preliminary hearing; and after sufficient time had lapsed Hum held a secret grand jury instead (just days before the preliminary hearing was to start). As a result Jon Hans never got to testify at the preliminary hearing. That does not change the fact that he was one of two people who Cam's attorney had made arrangements to fly to LA from CO so he would testify on Cam's behalf.
Jon Hans changed his mind about Cam, not out of his own experience, but because of what he read on the internet. He admitted that in cross examination. Plus, in his police interview he effectively admitted that he is disregarding his own experience because of everything he read on the internet. Would you trust someone who thinks like that?
Ken: The jury has heard the testimony of independent witnesses with nothing to gain -- and in Jon Hans' case, a lot to lose.
CI: Reflecting on that, I have to agree, but probably not for the same reasons.
Jon is going to end up losing a life-long friend, presuming that he beats the rap. Not something you do lightly. This lends added credence to his testimony.
Ken: Really, Patty? The evidence speaks for itself, and it is not insubstantial.
CI: What evidence? You mean the testimony? In that case, yes, it does, but your interpretation might be a bit weak.
Why of course, I mean the testimony! What the jury hears is all that matters, and all the jury will hear on this question is that Patty wanted to snatch Lauren for her own. It makes her the penultimate villain in this saga, whether you like it or not.
As I have told you repeatedly, the jury brings its collective life experience into the courtroom. Personally, I've seen so many divorce wars over the years that I would almost be surprised if Patty didn't have designs on Lauren. Just how it is, CI.
Ken: The testimony makes intrinsic sense, and furnishes them with a motive. There will be no testimony to the contrary, unless I miss my guess. The jury will take it to the bank.
CI: Are you sure?
I'm never 100% certain as to what a jury will do, but your side's attempt to discredit Jon Hans is imho beyond weak. Sure, he was persuaded to change sides by Ted's contumacious refusal to remove his letter, but he's turning state's evidence on a life-long friend. Have you ever seen an interview with the other Crazy Ted's brother, where he speaks about having to turn him in to the Feds? What Jon did wasn't easy, on many levels.
CI: I can't help wonder why Sprocket is missing some of the testimony, especially during cross. She simply addresses it as being more questions and answers that she missed or didn't bother to jot down. I wonder if she doesn't think the questions and answers are significant?
Evidently, she wasn't nearly as impressed with the cross as you are. If you think that Jon Hans was totally destroyed on the stand, it may have been your own personal blinders. She who lives in a glass house should not be in the habit of throwing stones.
CI: If Jon Hans or anyone else hung their hat on that testimony they are fools. It's a sad reality that he simply couldn't stand his ground because he was afraid of being wrong or ridiculed on the internet. It's funny that it took so many years for some people to recall some of what they testified to.
My guess is that Jon Hans didn't want to come forward, out of a seemingly justified fear that his testimony might be what puts Cam behind bars for the rest of his life. And as for "Jane Doe," investigators may not have found her until after the first trial. The story didn't even make it into the local papers, 'tho it was weird enough to blanket Australia.
CI [regarding Sprocket]: What has become very clear to me is that she is a very strong supporter of the prosecutor and law enforcement, to the extent of being googly-eyed in their presence.
And you think that everyone with Team Cam walks on water, whilst anyone who even questions your view of the case dances with the Devil. Check your own biases at the door, CI.
Ken said: Really, Patty? The evidence speaks for itself, and it is not insubstantial.What evidence? You mean the testimony? In that case, yes, it does, but your interpretation might be a bit weak.
Ken said: The jury has heard the testimony of independent witnesses with nothing to gain -- and in Jon Hans' case, a lot to lose.Reflecting on that, I have to agree, but probably not for the same reasons.
Ken said: The testimony makes intrinsic sense, and furnishes them with a motive. There will be no testimony to the contrary, unless I miss my guess. The jury will take it to the bank.Are you sure?
I can't help wonder why Sprocket is missing some of the testimony, especially during cross. She simply addresses it as being more questions and answers that she missed or didn't bother to jot down. I wonder if she doesn't think the questions and answers are significant? I don't think the defense is just moving their vocal chords for exercise. Perhaps she doesn't recognize the significance. I wonder if she will bother attending the trial during the defense presentation. I hope so, but if she doesn't I guess it won't surprise me. What has become very clear to me is that she is a very strong supporter of the prosecutor and law enforcement, to the extent of being googly-eyed in their presence.
In any case, I hope she and kitty are both doing well.
It's good to see you, DM. Thank you for your continued support. While we would like to provide some of the answers, it's best to remain mute until the attorney has his opportunity to present Cam's defense. I will say that the GJ was given much information which held no water and was eventually dropped or changed. That was predictable because the misinformation was so transparent under scrutiny. If Jon Hans or anyone else hung their hat on that testimony they are fools. It's a sad reality that he simply couldn't stand his ground because he was afraid of being wrong or ridiculed on the internet. It's funny that it took so many years for some people to recall some of what they testified to. It's one of those things that makes you go, hmmmm, especially because they are suddenly having similar memories. Oh my.
Ken: who has himself changed his mind on the matter of Cam's guilt.
Ted: And what was it that caused him to change his mind? Why, it was what he read in the GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT! That's what his testimony was. So here we are again to the same nonsense that "if a man has been indicted, he must therefore be guilty".
That's never stopped YOU, Fat-Shit Ananda! Mere accusations are sufficient for you, when it serves your purposes.
Ted: Ken Smith really should know better, but here we see how easily he can be snookered.
Again, Hans is testifying as to a conversation he had with Cam and Patty. He had no reason to lie. It dovetails with the testimony of other witnesses, and explains the voodoo kit and searches regarding custody. If there is any credible evidence disputing his testimony, I am unaware of it. Why shouldn't we believe a man who has no reason to lie?
Ted: BTW, if Cameron would have been agreeable to allowing Lauren to be adopted by Greg Marer, Patty certainly wouldn't have had any objection.
Prove it. All of the evidence presented at trial argues to the contrary, and the only way that you can get that in is to put Patty on the stand.
DM: Also, doesn’t the fact that Sarah faked her emotions while trying to setup Cam blow a lot of holes in attempts to judge demeanor and emotion through someone else’s perspective?
Depends. It is worth noting that Cam lied to the police in claiming that Sarah threatened his life. Of course, to Team Cam, this isn't even the slightest bit problematic ... but let Sarah fudge on custody papers, and it is the greatest outrage since Buchenwald!
Jon Hans related the substance of a conversation he had with Cam and Patty. On what basis do you say that he was lying under oath?
Ken: That Patty had plans to make Lauren her own -- the custody searches, the voodoo kit (I trust Moe on this, as she is an expert in the Craft), and the above remark -- were all corroborated by one of Cam's closest friends,
Ted: You dullard! I certainly expected better than this from you. "Corroborated" in what sense? Jon Hans's mind is made of mush, in my experience. He formed his opinions ONLY BECAUSE HE READ THEM HERE! So even you yourself said some of this BS, Jon Hans reads it and decides for some inscrutable reason that it must be true and repeats it as his own opinion, and then you come back and suppose that your original nonsense has somehow been "corroborated".
Jon Hans claimed under oath to have been relating a conversation he had with Cam and Patty. He had nothing to gain by testifying; you two have everything to gain by lying, and you lie as easily as most people breathe. He came forward with his account of the conversation, which served to corroborate the babysitter's testimony and explain the voodoo kit and searches regarding custody. The other ladies' testimony supports this theory, and the notion that Lauren was not particularly fond of being with Cam. It all adds up.
Ken: who has himself changed his mind on the matter of Cam's guilt.
Ted: And what was it that caused him to change his mind? Why, it was what he read in the GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT! That's what his testimony was. So here we are again to the same nonsense that "if a man has been indicted, he must therefore be guilty".
The testimony you speak of was sufficient to persuade a lot of people that it was highly likely that Cam did murder Lauren. Last time I checked the PYSIH board (eliminating the votes of Team Cam), the tally was 310-0. Jon Hans had enough knowledge of Cam as a person to come to the conclusion that yes, it was something he could have done -- and when you acted like the asshole you are toward him, he came forward and spoke to the police.
What the jury will do is anybody's guess. They are the people with their fingers on the button, and they know what it means to lock somebody up for the rest of his life. Their standard is a little higher than the general populace, and we as a society want it that way.
I’m with you, anony. I wouldn’t trust a character that blows in the wind like that, using one sided information to reinterpret his own past. Also, doesn’t the fact that Sarah faked her emotions while trying to setup Cam blow a lot of holes in attempts to judge demeanor and emotion through someone else’s perspective?
Sprocket [testimony]: CH: After the unsupervised visits started, did Lauren ever say something unusual to you?Ted whined: That is all pure, unadulturated BEE-ESS!
LAO: One time before the visit to England. [...] We'd gone to church. [...] Lauren came up to me, and she put her hands like this, (witness demonstrates her hands over her nose and face area, like a tee-pee) and she said to me, "My Papa Cameron going to put my mommy in jail. Greg is just my step dad. Josh is just my step brother. Papa Cameron (is my) new daddy. Patty is my new mommy."
Do you expect anyone to believe a proven sociopath like you, who has a Maybach on the line (well, only in his dreams), over Lauren's babysitter, who has no reason to lie?
Ken: I used to think Patty was blameless in this affair; Jon Hans' testimony has changed my mind.
Ted: Then you sure are gullible.
If I were gullible and stupid, I would be a Christian like you.
anony: Are you telling us that you have confidence in anything someone like that has to say? Would you trust him to have an effect in your life?
Compared to that brain-dead brother of yours? Any day of the week.
Jon Hans considered the evidence, reinterpreting his own experiences in light of what he learned in the grand jury testimony. If you are willing to believe in spite of the facts, you are a Christian.
Ted: Jon Hans's mind is made of mush, in my experience.
That is the absolute best testimonial you could give the man -- in my experience, you are a stalker and a sociopath, with a vindictive streak the size of the Mojave Desert. You will say anything, no matter how stupid or bizarre, if it serves your purpose ... and it does so here. If it comes down to the credibility of Ted Kaldis or Bill Clinton, I'd believe Bill Clinton every day, and twice on Sunday.
We have corroboration of Patty's designs on Lauren from at least four sources; Jon Hans was merely relating a conversation he had with Patty and Cam which made the fourth.
who has himself changed his mind on the matter of Cam's guilt.Jon Hans stated in his police interview that the person [Cam] he knew for over ten years (18 I think he said) "never existed" and he is basing that on what he read on the internet. In other words he is discounting his own experience of over a decade and allowing it to be supplanted by what a bunch of people who never met Cam said.
Are you telling us that you have confidence in anything someone like that has to say? Would you trust him to have an effect in your life?
Ken Smith wrote:
That is all pure, unadulturated BEE-ESS!CH: After the unsupervised visits started, did Lauren ever say something unusual to you?
LAO: One time before the visit to England. [...] We'd gone to church. [...] Lauren came up to me, and she put her hands like this, (witness demonstrates her hands over her nose and face area, like a tee-pee) and she said to me, "My Papa Cameron going to put my mommy in jail. Greg is just my step dad. Josh is just my step brother. Papa Cameron (is my) new daddy. Patty is my new mommy."
I used to think Patty was blameless in this affair; Jon Hans' testimony has changed my mind.Then you sure are gullible.
That Patty had plans to make Lauren her own -- the custody searches, the voodoo kit (I trust Moe on this, as she is an expert in the Craft), and the above remark -- were all corroborated by one of Cam's closest friends,You dullard! I certainly expected better than this from you. "Corroborated" in what sense? Jon Hans's mind is made of mush, in my experience. He formed his opinions ONLY BECAUSE HE READ THEM HERE! So even you yourself said some of this BS, Jon Hans reads it and decides for some inscrutable reason that it must be true and repeats it as his own opinion, and then you come back and suppose that your original nonsense has somehow been "corroborated".
who has himself changed his mind on the matter of Cam's guilt.And what was it that caused him to change his mind? Why, it was what he read in the GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT! That's what his testimony was. So here we are again to the same nonsense that "if a man has been indicted, he must therefore be guilty".
Ken Smith really should know better, but here we see how easily he can be snookered.
BTW, if Cameron would have been agreeable to allowing Lauren to be adopted by Greg Marer, Patty certainly wouldn't have had any objection.
a simpletonis what one must be if he actually believes one word in that last post; especially when he should know better, Ken.
Loretta: Now, in regard to Patty's role as step-mother:As 'Elf would say, "crickets on chirp." This is a critical dynamic of the case, as it explains why Cam didn't just sign the papers and let Lauren out of his life. If we assume that Cam wasn't just a gigolo, he couldn't tell Patty to take a long walk off a short pier. If it had happened three years earlier, those papers would have been signed in a New York minute, but Patty wanted a family and Lauren was at least theoretically available.
CI: Some of us enjoy spending time with the kids of friends but are just as anxious when it's time for them to go home. And some of us feel compelled to support the things that make our man/woman happy because we find pleasure in doing so.
Loretta: Then why undermine the mother? Why insist the child call you "Mommy"? Why badmouth the mom in front of the little child and her brother? Why have the voodoo kit under the bed? Why say things like "Sarah got what she deserved." Why file for full custody with no chance of gaining such?
Patty's choices, based on trial testimony and documentation, belie your characterization of her.
For a simpleton like Cam, the solution may well have been that obvious: Get rid of Lauren, and you get rid of the problem. Ted's been screaming for a motive; well, there it is.
Anyone who calls this a "dog" of a case is obviously suffering a flashback.
CI: Judge Arnold declared special circumstances again after the first trial and that is how it remains today.
And legally speaking, there are. Cam is a planner. There is more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Cam took Lauren up there with the intent to murder her, as the peanut gallery concludes 296-0 (I'm assuming that the four no votes were from Team Cam). Whether twelve jurors will do so is beside the point.
CI: Jobeth, Falicon may be an expert in fingerprint analysis but he is not a criminalist. He was not qualified as an expert witness in this trial and didn't claim to be. He specifically said that his job was to collect evidence and send it on to the criminalists in the crime lab. He was a deputy assigned to the crime lab. There is a difference.
If he was certified as a criminalist in the Spector trial, he is a criminalist, even if he did not serve in that specific capacity in the Lauren Key murder investigation. If a professor sweeps the floor in his classroom, it doesn't make him a janitor.
It is a distinction without a discernible difference.
CI: You can twist it any way you want to, but it still doesn't justify some of the conclusions you may reach.
CH: After the unsupervised visits started, did Lauren ever say something unusual to you?I used to think Patty was blameless in this affair; Jon Hans' testimony has changed my mind. That Patty had plans to make Lauren her own -- the custody searches, the voodoo kit (I trust Moe on this, as she is an expert in the Craft), and the above remark -- were all corroborated by one of Cam's closest friends, who has himself changed his mind on the matter of Cam's guilt.
LAO: One time before the visit to England. [...] We'd gone to church. [...] Lauren came up to me, and she put her hands like this, (witness demonstrates her hands over her nose and face area, like a tee-pee) and she said to me, "My Papa Cameron going to put my mommy in jail. Greg is just my step dad. Josh is just my step brother. Papa Cameron (is my) new daddy. Patty is my new mommy."
CI: after having been taken back by what ken posted
Funny how you are never taken aback at what Ted posts. He has positioned himself as a cockroach on the counter, hoping to make a quick Maybach off of this affair. He has no concern for justice or interest in fixing our broken legal system, all he has ever cared about in his sorry life is himself (and his sister). Yet, in your world, he walks on water.
Spare me your sanctimony.
Having reread my post, after having been taken back by what ken posted, I realize it was wrong with respect to the bail because it wasn't an option and I know how hard everyone fought to try to change that. Judge Arnold insisted that it wasn't going to happen, and all the money in the world wouldn't have made a difference in his court.
I made it sound like there was a choice between bail and defense, and that was wrong. Mountains would have been moved to spare Cam the time he had spent in jail. I know this is true and I should have been more careful and clear in my response.
Judge Arnold declared special circumstances again after the first trial and that is how it remains today.
Jobeth, Falicon may be an expert in fingerprint analysis but he is not a criminalist. He was not qualified as an expert witness in this trial and didn't claim to be. He specifically said that his job was to collect evidence and send it on to the criminalists in the crime lab. He was a deputy assigned to the crime lab. There is a difference.
BTW, Leslie testified yesterday that all but one of the pictures he found in the Brown home were pictures that Sarah gave Cam. He also testified that he confiscated all those pictures. When asked if the picture at the top of this page was one of those that Sarah gave Cam, he claimed it was. But if he confiscated all those, how did it end up on this blog?
Anonymous, here's what Sprocket wrote in her latest blog entry re: Falicon
Second, Thursday evening at the close of the court day, I asked Ms. Kim when would LA Co. Sheriff Deputy Falicon, (also a criminalist with the LA Co. Sheriff's crime lab), be testifying and she told me it would be in the morning. I told her I was quite disappointed since I could not attend the morning session and I know Deputy Falicon. I really wanted to see him testify. I saw Deputy Falicon testify in the Spector trial. If I am remembering correctly, before he was employed as a sworn LA Co. Deputy Sheriff, he worked for the FBI. I will have to check my notes.
When I got a personal tour of the Hertzberg-Davis Crime Lab by none other than (exceptional scientist and criminalist, and a personal hero of mine) Dr. Lynne Herold, Deputy Falicon and Bob Keil conducted the section of the tour covering the Firearms Department and I got to know a bit about Officer Falicon. I still bothers me that I have not had the time to write up my notes on that tour and they will probably be comprised of several entries since Mr. Sprocket and I spent about ten hours there. I was really impressed with Deputy Falicon. I know that he is a fully sworn deputy, uniform, gun, did patrol, etc. He was assigned to the crime lab many years ago to learn scene photography. From that he learned fingerprint comparison and chemical processing for fingerprints. During the Spector trial, there was an opening in the Firearms Department. He spent two years learning firearms examinations. He's a very skilled officer.
Do you spend the available funds on a defense, experts, and all the other things that the upcoming trial (or two) would cost, or do you go for the bail option?You spend the funds to get your loved one out of jail, and deal with the experts and the rest of it later.
I don't know. I'm not the one spending over 6 years in a filthy, horrific, demoralizing hellhole like LA County Jail. To me, it would be worth getting the heck out and taking my chances with a public defender and spending the time awaiting trial in the comfort of my home, in the arms of my new bride. But, that's just me. I guess Cam and Patty preferred he rot in jail rather than spend the cash or raise the cash.
I made a mistake and misspoke. It was the death penalty that was taken off the table not special circumstances. My apologies for the confusion.
Do you spend the available funds on a defense, experts, and all the other things that the upcoming trial (or two) would cost, or do you go for the bail option?Blah, blah, blah.
If bail was available, Cam would be out on bail.
Even when those circs were not supported and bail might have become an option, it became a matter of making choices. It would have required filing an appeal which in itself was expensive.NO!!! That never happened! He is facing special circumstances right now!!!
So, when bail was an option, it was deemed to expensive to motion for a bail hearing (requiring an appeal, why?), or the bail was expected to be too high to meet, so no motion for bail.No, it was never an option!!!
So, let me try to distill this into some simple Yes or No answers from CI:
In the beginning you must know that this case was filed as a capital crime with two special circumstances (lying in wait and financial gain). There was no bail.
Ok. No Bail. Got it. That's what we figured back in 2005.
Even when those circs were not supported and bail might have become an option, it became a matter of making choices. It would have required filing an appeal which in itself was expensive. Then, in the event it was won, the potential for a multi-million dollar bail in Arnold's court was more than a little bit likely. So add it up.
So, when bail was an option, it was deemed to expensive to motion for a bail hearing (requiring an appeal, why?), or the bail was expected to be too high to meet, so no motion for bail.
Got it.
Do you spend the available funds on a defense, experts, and all the other things that the upcoming trial (or two) would cost, or do you go for the bail option?
I don't know. I'm not the one spending over 6 years in a filthy, horrific, demoralizing hellhole like LA County Jail. To me, it would be worth getting the heck out and taking my chances with a public defender and spending the time awaiting trial in the comfort of my home, in the arms of my new bride. But, that's just me. I guess Cam and Patty preferred he rot in jail rather than spend the cash or raise the cash.
Now, in regard to Patty's role as step-mother:
Some of us enjoy spending time with the kids of friends but are just as anxious when it's time for them to go home. And some of us feel compelled to support the things that make our man/woman happy because we find pleasure in doing so.
Then why undermine the mother? Why insist the child call you "Mommy"? Why badmouth the mom in front of the little child and her brother? Why have the voodoo kit under the bed? Why say things like "Sarah got what she deserved." Why file for full custody with no chance of gaining such?
Patty's choices, based on trial testimony and documentation, belie your characterization of her.
I realize that some people may take pride and pleasure at their ability to write things at the expense of others, even if it is meant to be clever and funny. Sometimes we demonstrate a total disconnect and insensitivity and laugh, but sometimes it goes so far over the lines of decency that we are taken back and sickened that anyone's mind could actually be that warped. I guess it depends on the kind of people we want to be, or who we are. At this point I am only feeling more than a little bit sorry that you, Ken, find what you posted so amusing. But then, that's you. I'm glad that I don't share your enthusiasm.
Now for the question Loretta asked. Fair enough and I will answer.
In the beginning you must know that this case was filed as a capital crime with two special circumstances (lying in wait and financial gain). There was no bail. Even when those circs were not supported and bail might have become an option, it became a matter of making choices. It would have required filing an appeal which in itself was expensive. Then, in the event it was won, the potential for a multi-million dollar bail in Arnold's court was more than a little bit likely. So add it up. Do you spend the available funds on a defense, experts, and all the other things that the upcoming trial (or two) would cost, or do you go for the bail option?
Now, go make whatever hay of that you think is appropriate. And make some hay of this fact. Patty was NOT a rich person. She was accumulating toward financial security and putting aside whatever little nest egg she could. She was not Cam Brown's sugar mama. She made the same kind of choices in her life that the rest of us make. Some of us want kids. Some of us don't. Some of us enjoy spending time with the kids of friends but are just as anxious when it's time for them to go home. And some of us feel compelled to support the things that make our man/woman happy because we find pleasure in doing so. We are all different and all make choices based on things that others may not ever understand, but it doesn't make reality any different. You can twist it any way you want to, but it still doesn't justify some of the conclusions you may reach.
I'm ashamed to see what Ken posted here. Please, Ken, if you find it so amusing go to where ever you found it and stay there. Laugh your ass off or whatever else lights your fire, but Patty certainly doesn't deserve the cruel streak you exhibit by bringing that filth here. It takes all kinds to make this world turn, and I'm just glad that I'll never be in your league.
I have a serious question that has remained unanswered for years.
Why wasn't Brown released on bail. Was there ever a bail hearing?
I know the law in Collyforny after having researched it back during Peterson, and unless it's a capital crime, a defendant is entitled to a bail hearing. So, either the hearing took place and bail was denied because Brown was a flight risk, or bail was not met because the Brown didn't have the cash.
Or -- Geragos didn't ask for a bail hearing.
What happened?
It can't get any funnier than this, CI! Coming to a reality TV show near you -- a Craig Hum Production, directed by M. Night Shylaman:
Greek Frump is barren and can never have a child, and is convinced that if she could take this child and raise her as her own, she would not only solve the financial problems of her adored husband and earn his love and gratitude forever, but punish Former Lover Babe for having the audacity to be more beautiful, more desirable, more popular, more pure, more fun, more admired and for having that child with her husband thus interconnecting their lives forever!"I have seen you there in jail. They won't let me throw your bail! Do you love me, do you, Surfer Dude?"
To hedge her bet, Greek Frump studies witchcraft and voodoo and assembles the paraphernalia for casting spells on someone to whom you wish harm or bad luck. Shortly after Greek Frump casts her spells, Surfer Dude picks up Love Child without Greek Frump present and instead of bringing her to Greek Frump’s home, as is customary, he takes Love Child on a hike to the top of a 120-foot cliff overlooking the ocean where the child falls to her death below. Surfer Dude calls Greek Frump with the bad news, insisting it was a terrible accident and Greek Frump pledges her undying support.
Surfer Dude goes on trial for murder, twice, and Greek Frump and her ugly twin go broke. At the second trial, Surfer Dude is convicted, Greek Frump shrieks after the verdict and her ugly twin has to help her walk out of the courtroom and away to face the rest of her lonely, desperate existence without Surfer Dude and without Love Child.
As for L.A. juries, they couldn't convict Robert Blake ... not to mention O.J. I'm not sure that an acquittal is going to be seen as an exoneration.
CI: OK, stop it. Either conduct yourself respectfully or leave. I don't have the time right now to play supervisor in the play yard.
You've NEVER supervised Ted, or restrained him in any material sense. He's the one who is doing the bulk of the censorship here.
Ted: No, I think that we should seek to have an order of committment written for Ken Smith, to send him to Fort Logan hospital (where the Colorado Mental Health Institute is located). He clearly needs help.
EVERYBODY disagrees with your take, you oaf! The numbers are running 284-0 against you (eliminating Team Cam's votes, and presuming that you cast two votes). Disagreeing with Tall Tales Ted is emblematic of sanity.
OK, stop it. Either conduct yourself respectfully or leave. I don't have the time right now to play supervisor in the play yard. Life is all about people with differing views. Remember that it is the jury who will make the final determination. Nothing you say here is going to make a bit of difference. I've got better things to do.
Ken Smith wrote:
Baby Teddie, losing the debate badly, reaches for his rattle:No, I think that we should seek to have an order of committment written for Ken Smith, to send him to Fort Logan hospital (where the Colorado Mental Health Institute is located). He clearly needs help.I think that it is in order here to remind everyone that Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination.By that logic, Cameron John Brown is a COLD-BLOODED BABY-KILLER, because the government has accused him of it. Don't you think we should just skip the trial and go right to the lynching?
Loretta: And, considering how slow and disorganized you are, Ted, I think I can beat you to press. So, your book will follow mine and I will have already prepared the reading public for your "interpretations."
Hell, she's already beaten you to the screen treatment, Ted. No doubt, she already has the rights to the Tammy Wynette classic:
"Stand by your man, tho' he's a baby-killer,Ted: The difference is, only ONE of us actually knows what is REALLY going on.
You look like Phyllis Diller,
We'll understand...."
It was Vlad Putin, at the Bilderberger conference in Ottawa, behind the punch bowl.
Ted: Hum would have then tried to discredit the the existence of "George", and thereby portray Cameron as a liar.
You obviously missed the memo, Ted. Jane Doe testified to the jury that Cam told her that the mysterious one-armed man [where's Richard Kimball when you need him?] threw her belongings out of the cabin, that Cam had no answer as to why only her belongings were thrown out of the cabin, and that Cam admitted later that he had thrown them out of the cabin.
In short, she testified that Cam was a liar. Hum didn't need to find the "George" that didn't exist.
Loretta wrote:
And, considering how slow and disorganized you are, Ted, I think I can beat you to press. So, your book will follow mine and I will have already prepared the reading public for your "interpretations."The difference is, only ONE of us actually knows what is REALLY going on.
Baby Teddie, losing the debate badly, reaches for his rattle: I think that it is in order here to remind everyone that Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination.
By that logic, Cameron John Brown is a COLD-BLOODED BABY-KILLER, because the government has accused him of it. Don't you think we should just skip the trial and go right to the lynching?
Ted: Ken Smith posts actionable libel against me:
[quoting me] Finally, you are an established sociopath;
Like, I'm shaking in my boots. The truth is an absolute defense in a libel action, and our audience knows that I have it on my side.
You are a sociopath and a stalker, Ted. You have a serious case of OCD, and need to seek immediate professional help.
Ted: I don’t know about that (the "honest" part), because this little recount CERTAINLY calls her honesty into question. Or if it's not her honesty that's the problem, then her bias is compromising her integrity. Because obviously, her readers are NOT being well-served by her reporting.
Why? Because she got it right, and you got it wrong? Your bias is patently obvious, although it couldn't have compromised your integrity because you never had any to begin with.
The proof that Sprocket got it right is that things wouldn't have happened in the way they did if it didn't happen the way she said they did. You're too stupid and ignorant to know better.
Ken Smith posts actionable libel against me:
Finally, you are an established sociopath;I think that it is in order here to remind everyone that Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination.
Ted: But I also CLEARLY remember that she had said that "George" had thrown BOTH their belongings over the cliff.
Again, there are so many compelling reasons to disbelieve you, and not a single one to place any credence whatever in what you claim. If Jane Doe had said what you thought she said, Craig Hum would have confronted her with her sworn statement to the contrary. I guarantee you that he put her on the stand because he KNEW what she would say; remember that they had "an unlimited budget" (your words), and he isn't going to make a rookie mistake like that.
Ted: Nevertheless, she is NOT without bias. Let's be clear. She FAVOURS the prosecution. And she was CLEARLY wrong when she reported that "Jane Doe" testified that "Cameron said" that a crazy one-armed guy named "George", and who rides a horse threw the stuff off the cliff. "JD" didn't testify that Cameron told her that "George" did this, she testified simply that "George" did this. Otherwise, subsequent questioning would have been to discredit the notion that there even was a "George".
Hardly. Again, it would have been inadmissible hearsay, because presumably, she wasn't there; Hum would not have asked that question if he knew that that would be her answer. All Hum had to establish was that (1) Cam told her that someone else did it, (2) only her belongings were thrown from the cabin, and (3) Cam later admitted that he did it.
Like I said, Ted ... when you get your "law degree" from the dregs of a bottle of Wild Turkey like you obviously have, you are going to bust off unfathomably stupid comments like these.
Hum didn't need that much from her, and we don't know what limitations were placed upon her testimony. My guess is that they were substantial.
[Ken quoting Sprocket]: CH: Was there a time (that you) had some (of your things) in the cabin? [...] (What happened?)Ted: This is NOT an accurate recount. She did NOT say that Cameron "told" her, but that that's what the fellow did -- that he threw BOTH their belongings off the cliff. And that Cameron went and retrieved them.
JD: Cam told me a man named George, who had one arm ... he rode a horse, was angry that we were staying in the cabin and threw belongings off the cliff.
If "JD" had actually testified as Sprocket asserts, subsequent testimony would have been different.
Yes. It would have been inadmissible hearsay, you dumbfuck!
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Nevertheless, she is NOT without bias. Let's be clear. She FAVOURS the prosecution. And she was CLEARLY wrong when she reported that "Jane Doe" testified that "Cameron said" that a crazy one-armed guy named "George", and who rides a horse threw the stuff off the cliff. "JD" didn't testify that Cameron told her that "George" did this, she testified simply that "George" did this. Otherwise, subsequent questioning would have been to discredit the notion that there even was a "George".So what is it that makes you think that Sprocket is correct, and that I'm wrong (other than your intractable animus against me)?First and foremost, Sprocket doesn't have a dog in the hunt,
Bottom line: Sprocket didn't quite get it right here.
Ted: And yet apparently "Doe" did NOT testify as Hum expected -- or at least that's how it seemed. Whatever the case. He was done with her in less than 10 minutes.
He got what he needed, Ted. If you can get it with one question, that's even better. Irving Younger told one story of how, as a prosecutor, he had to cross the accused's mother. He got up, looked her in the eye, and said, "I have only one question. You're his mother, aren't you?" End of cross. Two hours of direct wasted; credibility in the dumpster.
How to Become a Criminalist
At minimum, you'll need a 4-year bachelor's degree in the field of Biology, physical science, Criminal Justice or Forensic Science to work in the criminalistics field. The title of the degree is not as important as the courses taken (biology, math, forensics, chemistry).
Did he represent himself as a criminalist in the Spector trial? That would really surprise me. It's more likely the media made that assumption and no one bothered to correct them.
anonymous said My cnocern is that Sprocket said Falicon was a highly respected criminalist. He is not a criminalist. He is a deputy assigned to gather evidence but has no qualifications to do scientific or any other kind of analysis of that evidence. It might be good if she checks out his qualifications and makes the appropriate correction.
He's a criminalist, assigned to the Scientific Services Bureau, and he's a forensic identification expert. Sounds to me like he has some qualifications to do analysis - he's analyzed fingerprint data in other cases where he's acted as an expert witness, are you saying he lied in his testimony, and that the State lied when presenting him as an expert in forensic id? What's your evidence that he is unqualified? Can you speak to his training and the job requirements of an employee in the criminology lab?
Ted: Whatever the case, I don't read her blog. I don't know what she's done previously. I see her scribbling furiously on the other side of the gallery. And I only comment on what I am told that she has written about this case. I can see that she has missed critical parts of the trial, and that this would color her perspective. As it seems to have.
How would you know, if you haven't even read her blog? What you would consider "critical" is dubious at best; as a glorified blue-collar telephone repairman (iirc, Ted has bragged that he doesn't own a suit, and he was caught wearing a Hawaiian shirt to the field trip in the last trial) who evidently got his "law degree" from the dregs of a bottle of Wild Turkey, you don't have the requisite knowledge or expertise to judge competently. What we know that Sprocket missed isn't all that important, as it isn't new, and ignores the fundamental nature of this case.
Sprocket is an experienced trial-watcher, who knows what is and isn't unusual. Granted, her sick kitty made her miss the Leslie cross, but it wasn't exactly earth-shattering last time.
anonymous: My cnocern is that Sprocket said Falicon was a highly respected criminalist. He is not a criminalist.
While she has done an amazing job -- even one member of Team Cam are willing to give her that (Ted would rather gnaw his arm off than admit that he was wrong about anything of importance) -- Sprocket has never said she is perfect. However, Falicon has been identified as a criminalist in the Spector trial ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/
...ews.philspector ) by the respected Guardian newspaper; one does not have to be proficient in all aspects of the discipline to qualify as a criminalist and doubtfully, few are ( http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/oc...de/
crimnlst.htm ). Detective Falicon is cited as contributing to several articles on the topic, which tends to suggest that he has an elevated level of expertise.
Ted: So what is it that makes you think that Sprocket is correct, and that I'm wrong (other than your intractable animus against me)?
First and foremost, Sprocket doesn't have a dog in the hunt, whereas you have a freakin' kennel in this one (so, have you ordered your Maybach yet?). Second, she's practically taking shorthand in the courtroom, and doesn't have the time to make things up even if she were inclined. Third, Hum asked her the question; you never ask a question in the courtroom that you don't already know the answer to, and he's not going to elicit exculpatory testimony. Fourth, Sprocket has earned an excellent reputation as a veteran trial blogger who gets her facts right. Fifth, Sprocket's version makes sense. Finally, you are an established sociopath; if you were to say that the sky was blue, most of the Netizens who know you would ask for a second opinion.
Yes, Ted, it's really that clear. To all of us, and not just me.
My cnocern is that Sprocket said Falicon was a highly respected criminalist. He is not a criminalist. He is a deputy assigned to gather evidence but has no qualifications to do scientific or any other kind of analysis of that evidence. It might be good if she checks out his qualifications and makes the appropriate correction.
Ok, I get it. The only reason I can think of as to why nobody here will post their own version of events as they occur in the courtroom is because you are hoarding the notes and impressions for your BOOK. My best guess is that you need to keep these notes secret, because most people won't ever know what happened in the courtroom and will take your word for it down the road.
Most people won't order transcripts to compare with your notes. Sprocket won't have the interest in refuting your information, should it be published in a little mass-market paperback some day.
But, I will. I'll still be around to be your fact-checker. Just remember that when you are ready to send your manuscript to your agent. And, considering how slow and disorganized you are, Ted, I think I can beat you to press. So, your book will follow mine and I will have already prepared the reading public for your "interpretations."
Ready. Set. Go.
ronni wrote:
Sprocket has a very good reputation, and a blog on trial watching that has had over a million hits. This is not the only trial she has covered. Her coverage is known for its accuracy and objectivity. She has no dog in this fight.Whatever the case, I don't read her blog. I don't know what she's done previously. I see her scribbling furiously on the other side of the gallery. And I only comment on what I am told that she has written about this case. I can see that she has missed critical parts of the trial, and that this would color her perspective. As it seems to have.
Ken Smith wrote:
You have to realize that Ted doesn't live in our world;Of course not. Few people -- if any -- live in Ken's Smith's world.
Hum wouldn't have put "Doe" or Hans on unless he knew what they were going to testify to, and both sides have sworn statements from both witnesses.And yet apparently "Doe" did NOT testify as Hum expected -- or at least that's how it seemed. Whatever the case. He was done with her in less than 10 minutes.
Sprocket has a very good reputation, and a blog on trial watching that has had over a million hits. This is not the only trial she has covered. Her coverage is known for its accuracy and objectivity. She has no dog in this fight.
Ken Smith wrote:
TeddieBeer has had another acid flashback, or so it would seem ...Au contraire. There’s no delusion here – except on YOUR part, as usual. And acid has nothing to do with it (unless perhaps you have at one time or another dropped some).
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:So what is it that makes you think that Sprocket is correct, and that I'm wrong (other than your intractable animus against me)?It seems that Ken is the one who is hallucinating here, because that was NOT her testimony. She said that some crazy one-armed guy who rode a horse went into the cabin and threw BOTH her AND Cameron's stuff off a cliff. And that Cameron rappelled down the cliff and retrieved the stuff. Clearly NOT the answer that Hum expected. Other than that, she had some helpful things to say about Cameron.Again, trial delusion on steroids. As you might expect when dealing with a sociopath like Ted Kaldis, Sprocket's transcript of the proceedings is remarkably different:
[Ken quoting Sprocket]:This is NOT an accurate recount. She did NOT say that Cameron "told" her, but that that's what the fellow did -- that he threw BOTH their belongings off the cliff. And that Cameron went and retrieved them.CH: Was there a time (that you) had some (of your things) in the cabin? [...] (What happened?)
JD: Cam told me a man named George, who had one arm ... he rode a horse, was angry that we were staying in the cabin and threw belongings off the cliff.
If "JD" had actually testified as Sprocket asserts, subsequent testimony would have been different. Hum would have then tried to discredit the the existence of "George", and thereby portray Cameron as a liar. But, as it was his OWN witness ("JD") who brought up "George", it really didn't make any sense for him to discredit his own witness.
[Ken's quote of Sprocket continues]:I remember this response as "I don't know." But I also CLEARLY remember that she had said that "George" had thrown BOTH their belongings over the cliff.The witness said the items were a radio, boom box and clothings.
JD: Cam had rode down and everything (was) brought back up.
CH: Did he have any explanation as to why only your belongings went over the cliff?
JD: No.
I don’t know about that (the "honest" part), because this little recount CERTAINLY calls her honesty into question. Or if it's not her honesty that's the problem, then her bias is compromising her integrity. Because obviously, her readers are NOT being well-served by her reporting.But I'm in the courtroom, and you're not.Sprocket's in the courtroom, AND SHE IS HONEST.
Jobeth: Does anyone know from whom you order transcripts?
Loretta has ordered them. She'd know the particulars.
Jobeth: Are you not saying because Harris is going to re-call these witnesses? Or are you not saying because you can't remember what exactly they testified to? Or is it just because you want to see what Sprocket posts so you can try to spin that, rather than posting stuff that is clearly refuted by Sprocket's summaries? (Because the whole 'one armed guy named George' thing was plainly and patently different than what you posted above, unless Sprocket's notes are wrong? Ken posted the excerpt from her blog, so can you speak to that - why would she have notes that indicate that Jane Doe testified only HER things went over the cliff, while you're saying she testified that Cam's things went over the cliff, too?) I also note that Sprocket *thinks* she remembers the witness stating that Cam eventually admitted it was him, but her notes on that weren't clear. I'd be interested in seeing the full transcript there, too.
Ted is a sociopath, a stalker (he traveled clear across Melbourne, Australia -- a city the size of Chicago -- to "drop in" on one of his 'Net adversaries and take a photo of the guy's house, which he then posted; he has posted two pics of a house he claims is mine) and a Steve Winter-class legendary Net-KooooooK. He is mentally unstable, suffering from an acute case of OCD. Don't expect even a scrap of honesty from him.
Ted has never learned that when you are in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. By way of example, in light of the obvious fact that he looks more like a walrus than a man ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ran...r57/
TED_AUS.jpg ), he claimed that Patty got all of the cute genes (which actually suggests that they had different fathers, as they are only fraternal twins).
Ted said: That's not the issue. These "hotties" did NOT testify that Cameron had "anger management issues. (More than that I cannot say at this time.)
Well, you CAN say, but you choose not to. Since they've already testified, it's on record.
Are you not saying because Harris is going to re-call these witnesses? Or are you not saying because you can't remember what exactly they testified to? Or is it just because you want to see what Sprocket posts so you can try to spin that, rather than posting stuff that is clearly refuted by Sprocket's summaries? (Because the whole 'one armed guy named George' thing was plainly and patently different than what you posted above, unless Sprocket's notes are wrong? Ken posted the excerpt from her blog, so can you speak to that - why would she have notes that indicate that Jane Doe testified only HER things went over the cliff, while you're saying she testified that Cam's things went over the cliff, too?) I also note that Sprocket *thinks* she remembers the witness stating that Cam eventually admitted it was him, but her notes on that weren't clear. I'd be interested in seeing the full transcript there, too.
Does anyone know from whom you order transcripts? The LA Superior Court website is completely non-helpful from that perspective.
Ted accuses without evidence: Unfortunately, the county is BROKE -- and that includes the courts (even while the prosecution CONTINUES to have an unlimited budget in this case). The court doesn't have the money to even buy the jurors lunch for one day -- and that is NO joke. The judge even said so.
The prosecution has an unlimited budget, even today? How do you know this? Based on what evidence, Ted? Did your god tell you this while you were having a difficult bowel movement?
My guess is that everybody has had to cut back, but the costs associated with this prosecution are already sunk. No reason to stop now ... especially, when the evidence we know to have been presented to this point is more than sufficient for a jury to find Cam guilty of Murder One.
Ted: EVERYTHING that Ken Smith posts here is intended as a provocation to me.
Never mind that by comparison (from PYSIH), my comments have been measured:
He was just trying to punish the mother for DARING to ask him to help raise the child he created just as much as she did. Poor woman, and poor Lauren.Yeah, they're all posting as a provocation to Ted.
What a monster, goddamn. I don’t even have anything eloquent to say.
While Ted Kaldis is a well-known annoying Internet “kook” on usenet’s misc.legal newsgroup, Cameron Brown married his apparently unattractive fraternal sister Patty only for her money, which is now pretty much gone. According to descriptions on the “Trials and Tribulations” blog at http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/, the current retrial is not going very well for the defendant, who at one point refused to come out of his cell for an hour to attend one court session, and who evidently went to the bathroom without the judge’s permission.
My sons father and I split up when he was 3 1/2 years old….and my son was SO excited on the days he knew daddy was going to pick him up, he would chatter about it a day in advance. Unable to speak? Clinging to Mom? Saying straight up she didn’t want to see him? This man is a worthless POS, and he KNOWS he threw that baby off of a cliff. I hope he ROTS in hell.
Maybe I saved myself and my son from a Cameron Brown catastrophe. Fuck the money. Save the kid from the jackassed freak who denies his own flesh and blood.
Hell for this idiot and his wifey and brother in law. Hope its hot and firey with rocks and cliffs.
He looks like a kook too.
The time for this guy to have been all pissy about parenthood and support should have been BEFORE he had sex. Real men and real women do what is legally required regarding parenting and support.
This tool was obviously not a real man.
Plenty of mothers earn the big FAIL. This one did not.
What needs to be done here is that Cameron needs to go ti the cliff with the jury and show them how his daughter “slipped”.
After he “slips” like his daughter did, examine his body for briusing patterns similar to his daughter’s – if they match he’s innocent else guilty.
I have been following this retrial from the beginning. I encourage everyone to read the transcripts at http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com It is chilling.
Brown is more worried about his fucking surfboard then his daughter lying dead on a pinic table. I hope this cold-hearted bastard spends the rest of his life in prison.
[NavyCop]: Put him in a dark room all alone… Then let me in there. I will keep the lights off and kick the everloving shit out of him. I want to bash his head in to the ground, seriously. He has to be a narcissistic douche if he was cold enough to push his own flesh and blood off of a cliff. He didn’t even WANT her, why did he get visitation!? Kill the bastard slowly, very, very slowly
I’ve been reading the T&T blog, and looking up all kinds of stuff about this case….the autopsy report is heinous. After just reading a little bit about this case, I could see how someone would think maybe it was just a fall…dig deeper, and NO WAY. NO FREAKIN WAY. What struck me was that there was no dirt scratches on her legs or arms, no broken fingernails like she tried to claw at the ground as she “fell”. The only injuries were consistant with the landing below. who’s gonna fall off of a cliff and not at least slide first, claw at the gound first? She was thrown, that simple. This guys is just evil.
Totally agree. When you read the transcript there’s no doubt that this evil bastard is guilty as hell. He showed no emotion after his daughter’s violent death. Rather he joked with sunbathers. Listen to the 911 tape. Her mother on the other hand was hysterical and even threw up. Do not even comment on this case until you’ve read T&T. One of his best friends is now even convinced of his guilt.
No, Lauren Key is dead because of one person, Cameron John Brown, and his obsession with his money and his “freedom”. He is one of the more disgusting child murderers I’ve ever had the distinct displeasure of having to get to know with as part of my job here at PYSIH.
Sprocket's in the courtroom, AND SHE IS HONEST.
...and awake!
Ted: No, this is where a deficiency in Sprocket's reporting style becomes manifest. She didn't hear what I said to those people, and instead posted her [unwarranted] assumption. We had a large bag of stuff on the floor by those seats. I simply pointed out that that was our stuff (and the fact is I was unable to reach it with them sitting there). If they would have simply given me room to retrieve the bag, that is what I would have done. Instead, they elected to move, even though I did NOT explicitly ask them to.
Again, Ted parses his words too carefully; it seems that Sprocket captured the substance of the exchange ("This is our spot, ladies!"), even if Ted didn't explicitly ask them to move.
Ken: And they were all hotties?
Ted: That's not the issue. These "hotties" did NOT testify that Cameron had "anger management issues. (More than that I cannot say at this time.)
Fortunately, we have Sprocket to tell us what is really going on in the courtroom, as an antidote to the Sociopathic Stalker's endless stream of fabrications and falsehoods.
Ken: Not good for Cam, especially if Patty doesn't measure up.
Ted: On the other hand, this time the jury is not made up primarily of Oprah-watching Torrance housewives.
Men will pick up on the same thing -- and probably faster. If "Greek Frump" (Patty) is as ugly as the evidence we do have suggests ... well, remember what you said about men?
Ted: Late this afternoon we (along with the jury) learned an interesting tidbit. Detective Jeff Leslie was the afternoon witness, and late in Defense Attorney Pat Harris's cross-examination of him, Harris brought up something in a recorded conversation between Leslie and another Sheriff's Officer. Harris quoted Leslie saying to the other officer, "Don't worry. We have an unlimited budget in this case."Absolutely a correct ruling, and borderline misconduct on Harris' part. It doesn't speak to the integrity of the case at all; notorious murder cases have a pretty generous budget as a matter of course. The idea that detectives will not leave a victim's family wanting for justice is good P.R.
Prosecutor Craig Hum: OBJECTION!
Judge Pastor: Sustained!
Defense Attorney Harris: May we approach?
Judge Pastor: There's no need. The objection is sustained.
Defence Attorney Harris: Your Honor, it goes to the integrity of this case.
Judge Pastor [sternly, and somewhat irritated]: I've made my ruling; we're not going to argue this in open court.
Ted: And that was that. I don't know if they are going to pick this up in chambers this coming week, but it CERTAINLY raises some new questions. "Unlimited budget" implies that they aren't ever going to stop until they "get" Cameron. Which is EXACTLY what happened.God love 'em! Murder prosecutions are at the very top of the prosecutors' food chain. Everyone wants to prosecute them, and they want to show the general public that they're doing their jobs. Gangland murders are a dime a dozen, but whenever a case has a chance to end up on Nancy Grace, Greta sans Substance, or truTV (Hum already has one credit there) -- cute little blonde girls always cut to the front of the line -- they'll pull out all the stops.
Ken Smith likes to ask, "Why would they go after some stevedore?" That's not the question any more. The question now is, "Why DID they go after some stevedore?" Because after the above exchange, it become manifestly clear that THAT is EXACTLY what they did.
They didn't so much "go after Cam" as that they wanted to solve the (alleged) crime. He just happened to be the one responsible for Lauren's death.
Ted: Rank balderdash. I will admit to floating a few possible scenarios, but I have accused NO ONE.
You've floated more scenarios than the average rubber ducky race.
Ken: You can sort-of tell who's winning the P.R. battle here.
Ted: The "P.R. battle" is just a sideshow. And I'm not interested in sideshows.
Which is, of course, why you put up your website -- the one that made Jon Hans a witness for the prosecution -- and continue to post your incontinent drivel everywhere from USENET to the Daily Breeze fora. If you didn't want or need to play, this blog wouldn't be up.
For you, the truth is still an undiscovered country. I would recommend an occasional visit, at least.
Ken: If this is what the public thinks, chances are that it's probably what the jury is thinking.
Ted: If that were indeed the case, then there would be no need for the sideshow.
IOW, Angelinos could just lynch him and save the County some jack:
So, Is Cameron Brown An Evil, Greedy Prick Who Deserves To Burn In Hell Forever?
* Oh yeah, big time. (99.0%, 281 Votes)
* No, it was a terrible accident. (1.0%, 3 Votes) [CI, Ted, and Patty]
Jobeth: He hasn't explained to us yet how Jon Hans' & Jane Doe's testimony "fizzled". I'm honestly interested in his take on that.You have to realize that Ted doesn't live in our world; reality comes in an out with him like the old UHF channel with the Spanish-speaking guy in the bee suit. Hum wouldn't have put "Doe" or Hans on unless he knew what they were going to testify to, and both sides have sworn statements from both witnesses. The days of Perry Mason-class surprises are pretty much gone.
Ted: I wrote a little about what "Jane Doe" REALLY said. As for Jon Hans, he had earlier written so glowingly of Cameron that his later statements didn't make sense in light of the earlier ones. But that's about all that I really have to say about that.
BTW, I don't see it as my role to fill in all of you on all the details of the trial. I will post a FEW of my perceptions, but that's it.
Again, Ted has a freakin' kennel in the hunt here -- have you put in your order on that Maybach, Ted? -- and his chance of seeing things objectively are about the equivalent of the Broncos and Lions meeting in the Super Bowl this year. Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt (Men willingly believe what they wish).
Ken: Talk about unintended consequences. The odds are overwhelming that the only reason Hans is testifying is because Ted is such a raging asshole, and that odds are good that a conviction may result from his testimony.
TeddieBeer, having one of his classic acid flashbacks, wrote: Jon Hans's testimony -- taken in whole, INCLUDING the cross-examination -- was VERY helpful for Cameron. So much so, that I am inclined to think that Craig Hum wishes that he had never heard of Jon Hans.
Ted, why is it that, whenever we can check your work, you are ALWAYS caught in a lie? Again, Sprocket caught you out:
CH: It sounds like you really (liked the defendant)?Kind-of reminds me of that other Crazy Ted, who is currently holed up in Supermax. His own brother turned him in.
JH: I loved him like a brother.
CH: Was it hard for you to talk to police?
JH: It was emotional and also a relief to get it off my chest.
CH: Was it hard for you to come into court and testify?
JH: Yes.
CH: You've obviously changed your mind?
JH: Yes.
Having Harris use the word "planner" was more than worth the price of bringing him to town, from Hum's perspective. "Cam is a planner. And he planned to take Lauren there."
Ted: Harris got MUCH more than Mark Geragos. Both Jessica Brothers and Jeff Leslie were VERY effectively discredited in cross-examination.
Unfortunately, Ted, when you aren't sleeping in the courtroom (you must have slept through Jane Doe's testimony, as evidenced by Sprocket's transcripts refuting your bizarre claims), you live in an alternate universe of invisible pink unicorns and psychotic gods who speak to you while you are having a difficult bowel movement and tell you exactly what you wanted to hear in the first place.
If things were going nearly as well as you proclaim, Harris wouldn't be asking for a mistrial.
TeddieBeer has had another acid flashback, or so it would seem....
Ted: It seems that Ken is the one who is hallucinating here, because that was NOT her testimony. She said that some crazy one-armed guy who rode a horse went into the cabin and threw BOTH her AND Cameron's stuff off a cliff. And that Cameron rappelled down the cliff and retrieved the stuff. Clearly NOT the answer that Hum expected. Other than that, she had some helpful things to say about Cameron.
Again, trial delusion on steroids. As you might expect when dealing with a sociopath like Ted Kaldis, Sprocket's transcript of the proceedings is remarkably different:
CH: Was there a time (that you) had some (of your things) in the cabin? [...] (What happened?)Ted: But I'm in the courtroom, and you're not.
JD: Cam told me a man named George, who had one arm... he rode a horse, was angry that we were staying in the cabin and threw belongings off the cliff.
The witness said the items were a radio, boom box and clothings.
JD: Cam had rode down and everything (was) brought back up.
CH: Did he have any explanation as to why only your belongings went over the cliff?
JD: No.
Sprocket's in the courtroom, AND SHE IS HONEST.
Case Insider wrote:
Guesses about income? Really? That's not what Mr. Hum said. When a man is paying 40% of his income in a state where the norm is substantially less than that, you might expect that the documentation supports it.It was worse than that. On many of Cameron's paychecks [for one pay period], Cameron took home $423, while $491 went for child support.
"Jobeth66" wrote:
Well, if I had the transcripts, of course I would post themAccording to what I have been told, that would be a violation of California law.
- again, it's public information.The INFORMATION contained in the transcripts is public, but the transcripts themselves are "work product". You may disseminate the information, but you may NOT distribute copies of the transcripts themselves.
Ken Smith wrote [re: the cross-examination of Jessica Brothers and Jeff Leslie]:
I'm expecting that Harris got what Geragos got; there's no particular reason for him to be upset with the outcome there because those should have been his strongest days.Harris got MUCH more than Mark Geragos. Both Jessica Brothers and Jeff Leslie were VERY effectively discredited in cross-examination.
"Jobeth66" wrote:
And where's Ted?I'm right here.
He hasn't explained to us yet how Jon Hans' & Jane Doe's testimony "fizzled". I'm honestly interested in his take on that.I wrote a little about what "Jane Doe" REALLY said. As for Jon Hans, he had earlier written so glowingly of Cameron that his later statements didn't make sense in light of the earlier ones. But that's about all that I really have to say about that.
BTW, I don't see it as my role to fill in all of you on all the details of the trial. I will post a FEW of my perceptions, but that's it. You may agree, or disagree (as Ken Smith almost invariably will). But I'm in the courtroom, and you're not.
Ken Smith wrote:
Talk about unintended consequences. The odds are overwhelming that the only reason Hans is testifying is because Ted is such a raging asshole, and that odds are good that a conviction may result from his testimony.Jon Hans's testimony -- taken in whole, INCLUDING the cross-examination -- was VERY helpful for Cameron. So much so, that I am inclined to think that Craig Hum wishes that he had never heard of Jon Hans.
Ken Smith wrote:
You can sort-of tell who's winning the P.R. battle here.The "P.R. battle" is just a sideshow. And I'm not interested in sideshows.
If this is what the public thinks, chances are that it's probably what the jury is thinking.If that were indeed the case, then there would be no need for the sideshow.
Ken Smith wrote:
I hate to tell you this, but Friday [7 August --tak] was NOT a good day for Team Cam. And no, Jane Doe did not "fizzle" ... except in the LSD-induced perception of The Oafsome One. He threw her freakin' possessions off a cliff?!It seems that Ken is the one who is hallucinating here, because that was NOT her testimony. She said that some crazy one-armed guy who rode a horse went into the cabin and threw BOTH her AND Cameron's stuff off a cliff. And that Cameron rappelled down the cliff and retrieved the stuff. Clearly NOT the answer that Hum expected. Other than that, she had some helpful things to say about Cameron.
As for the two other items that I left off, these will potentially be addressed in the defense case, and I cannot say anything about them now. Let's just say that things are really NOT as they might seem.
Ken Smith wrote:
Jurors aren't supposed to know what is going on outside the courtroom, and if this is a problem, the proper remedy is sequestration. Put 'em up in the Hyatt downtown and control what they see.Unfortunately, the county is BROKE -- and that includes the courts (even while the prosecution CONTINUES to have an unlimited budget in this case). The court doesn't have the money to even buy the jurors lunch for one day -- and that is NO joke. The judge even said so.
Ken Smith wrote:
"Sprocket", as quoted by Ken:No, this is where a deficiency in Sprocket's reporting style becomes manifest. She didn't hear what I said to those people, and instead posted her [unwarranted] assumption. We had a large bag of stuff on the floor by those seats. I simply pointed out that that was our stuff (and the fact is I was unable to reach it with them sitting there). If they would have simply given me room to retrieve the bag, that is what I would have done. Instead, they elected to move, even though I did NOT explicitly ask them to.The prior witness comes into the courtroom to sit with another woman. They sit in the front row. When Ted comes in, he asks them to move from his front row seat spot.That's our Ted. Always the asshole.
"The Acquaintance" wrote [to Ken]:
I wouldn't be surprised if your theory is just meant as another provocation to Ted.EVERYTHING that Ken Smith posts here is intended as a provocation to me.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:That's not the issue. These "hotties" did NOT testify that Cameron had "anger management issues. (More than that I cannot say at this time.)Ken Smith wrote:And they were all hotties?I can't wait for the procession of Baywatch Babes who will testify to Cam's anger management deficit.Most of them have already testified.
Not good for Cam, especially if Patty doesn't measure up.On the other hand, this time the jury is not made up primarily of Oprah-watching Torrance housewives.
Late this afternoon we (along with the jury) learned an interesting tidbit. Detective Jeff Leslie was the afternoon witness, and late in Defense Attorney Pat Harris's cross-examination of him, Harris brought up something in a recorded conversation between Leslie and another Sheriff's Officer. Harris quoted Leslie saying to the other officer, "Don't worry. We have an unlimited budget in this case."
Prosecutor Craig Hum: OBJECTION!
Judge Pastor: Sustained!
Defense Attorney Harris: May we approach?
Judge Pastor: There's no need. The objection is sustained.
Defence Attorney Harris: Your Honor, it goes to the integrity of this case.
Judge Pastor [sternly, and somewhat irritated]: I've made my ruling; we're not going to argue this in open court.
And that was that. I don't know if they are going to pick this up in chambers this coming week, but it CERTAINLY raises some new questions. "Unlimited budget" implies that they aren't ever going to stop until they "get" Cameron. Which is EXACTLY what happened.
Ken Smith likes to ask, "Why would they go after some stevedore?" That's not the question any more. The question now is, "Why DID they go after some stevedore?" Because after the above exchange, it become manifestly clear that THAT is EXACTLY what they did.
Ken Smith LIES:
Ted has been dreaming up an endless stream of patently ridiculous -- and, in many cases, easily disprovable -- accusations about everyone associated with the prosecution for five years.Rank balderdash. I will admit to floating a few possible scenarios, but I have accused NO ONE. Ken Smith has a fertile imagination, which he apparently cannot distinguish from reality.
Oh, I mean "Case Insider." And if you are not "Just Amazed", then I'll repeat my Gordon Ramsey epithet.
Either way, unless you have read it for yourself, which you claim you haven't (and based on your track record in the past, I don't believe for a minute), then you can't describe it at all, much less as "spectacular and utter nonsense." You see, once again I have revealed your spectacular and utter lack of honesty or sense of humor. I am perfectly willing to have my work characterized as "speculation" or even as "utter nonsense" but it was never lies, it was never anything but analysis based on information as we got it at the time. If you have different information, feel free, as we have asked you dozens of times, to reveal it.
Since you and your friends here are niggardly or cryptic about sharing your information, but insist that those of us evaluating the information we receive from other sources, including transcripts of the trial itself, are full of crap, what is the point, exactly, of this website?
Speculation.
Get new glasses, Jean.
Loretta said: Either you do read other sites (or mine, anyway) enough to remember something I wrote in speculation or utter nonsense, or you don't and you are now relying on second- or third-hand descriptions, which I might remind you constitute total hearsay and are inadmissable as evidence. heh.Spectacular or utter nonsense. That's the way it's been described to me, but it appears some people were relying on you to be telling the truth. Some people believed you. Some people believed John and Ken. Spectacular and utter nonsense. [rolling eyes and shaking head].
CI claims:
Cam never complained about the support he paid for Lauren. He seemed to think it was all a part of what needed to be done in order to spend time with her.
Really? You were with him 24/7 from 1999 until his arrest to know this for sure? So everyone else who has made the claim that he was unhappy with it and wanted it lowered, and his own statements to friends (hearsay, but still) were just fiction, and the People's case is based on a great, big misinterpretation? Is that what you are saying?
If so, well, as Gordon Ramsey would say, "Fuck me!"
Loretta: Either you do read other sites (or mine, anyway) enough to remember something I wrote in speculation or utter nonsense, or you don't and you are now relying on second- or third-hand descriptions, which I might remind you constitute total hearsay and are inadmissable as evidence. heh.
Looks like CI just got hoist on her own petard.
CI: Only a fool tries to read the temperment of a jury and feel confident about it.
Then, a lot of attorneys are fools. They pick up what they believe to be non-verbal clues and react to them. I have no earthly idea how this jury will react when they finally get the case, but the clues Sprocket are relating are not particularly encouraging. The overwhelming reaction to the bare facts of this case is "WTF?!" The jury is probably going to start from that perspective, although there is no certainty on this point.
Cam never complained about the support he paid for Lauren. He seemed to think it was all a part of what needed to be done in order to spend time with her. He cherished his daughter.
It is what it is, CI. I never said that I considered it okay.
Ken
Good. I'm glad to see that clarified. Only a fool tries to read the temperment of a jury and feel confident about it.
Where did I assume Geragos owned Patty's home? The one with a lien on it? Does she still own it? Is there stilll a lien on it. I know what a lien is, she may very well still own it and not be able to sell it. I don't really care one way or the other. However, if you never read other sites, I don't know how you would know what I did or didn't write. So, make up your mind. Either you do read other sites (or mine, anyway) enough to remember something I wrote in speculation or utter nonsense, or you don't and you are now relying on second- or third-hand descriptions, which I might remind you constitute total hearsay and are inadmissable as evidence. heh.
Anyhoo, I know how child support calculations are done. If they screwed up the amount, it was easy to get a review, especially if Cam's financial conditions had changed that much. The spouse's income is not taken into consideration so Patty could have been a millionaire twice over and it wouldn't have mattered. Did Brown attempt to resolve this in a legal way? Did his spite and anger cloud his reasoning? There were plenty of solutions to this dilemma without resorting to perjury, threats or murder.
The Browns could have moved to Sarah's neighborhood, gradually increased the visitation, quit threatening and undermining the child's mother (a very bad strategy if you want to win her heart), and eventually gained shared custody and eliminated the child support obligation once and for all.
Why didn't they do that? Only Cam and Patty can tell you.
Loretta said
First of all, the child support issues are not generally resolved in an actual courtroom under actual trial conditions; most of the time the plaintiff and defendant just fill out forms and make guesses about income. Sometimes they provide documentation. This is not an exact science. It's also true that Cam Brown lied on a number of occasions - about the amount of time he spent with his child, about his alleged injury that was going to lower his income (or his alleged disability), and I'm sure I coud discover several others if I bothered to review the paperwork we discovered about the couples' income and assets awhile back.Guesses about income? Really? That's not what Mr. Hum said. When a man is paying 40% of his income in a state where the norm is substantially less than that, you might expect that the documentation supports it. Perhaps some people want to stretch the truth to gain benefits, but in this case the jury will have to make that determination. In fact, it's all up to the jury at this point. From what I understand it was your contention that Mark Geragos owned their home and Patty was living in a trailer park somewhere. What was that? A bit of speculation? Wishful thinking? Whatever it was it had nothing to do with the truth. From what I understand your interpretation left something to be desired. I'm not here to judge you, however, so let's just leave it at that.
What outrage, Loretta? I'm perfectly comfortable with the way things are going. I think we are finally seeing fairness in the courtroom and that is all we asked for and expected. I suspect both sides to make their points and the jury to add them up. In the meanwhile, stop twisting yourself into a knot over it.
This case hangs by a thread.
Ken
I find that amusing. And you base that on what, exactly. I don't know who voted, but it wasn't us. We don't go to other sites.
CI, I appreciate that you don't want to engage in 'tit for tat' arguments, but at the same time, your contention is that things that have already occurred paint a different picture than what Sprocket has said because she missed some things. I'm absolutely willing to consider all the evidence, and I've already admitted my bias, but it's just that - a bias, not a conviction. My mind can be changed. If it's already happened, and it's already out there, and it's mitigating evidence, then I just can't understand what the big deal is about giving us a summary of what was missed that would skew things the other way. I'm not asking for defense strategy to be revealed. I'm not asking for yet-to-be-seen evidence to be relayed. I'm asking for a summary or overview of the statements made by witnesses that have already been crossed that you, Patty & Ted say provided a different picture than Sprocket's material has painted. Nothing nefarious.I can appreciate what you have said. The prosecutor is about to wrap up his case. I believe he will finish with testimony from all but one witness today. Depending on how that goes, the court may be dark on Monday and the last witness will testify on Tuesday. Then it's Pat's turn. When it's all over, it's our turn. We have no intention of saying anything until they are finished.
I'm sure you will. We have nothing to show you until it's over. As long as the attorney is speaking for Cam, we won't be.
You say that like the GJ testimony, we're only seeing one side of the evidence in some cases. I'm *asking* to see the other side. Not upcoming, but already revealed. I just don't see how that can be construed as an unreasonable request. But right now, you're pointing at invisible pink unicorns in your garage. Only the garage door is shut, the lights are off, and the windows are boarded up. I'm just supposed to believe on faith that yes, the invisible pink unicorns ARE there, a few of you have seen evidence of them. I'm just asking to see the evidence myself.
Jobeth66
The PYSIH tally: So, Is Cameron Brown An Evil, Greedy Prick Who Deserves To Burn In Hell Forever?
* Oh yeah, big time. (100.0%, 232 Votes)
* No, it was a terrible accident. (0.0%, 1 Votes)
Assuming that either CI or Ted voted, it's pretty much unanimous. Whether it is right or wrong, this is what juries are going to think. With Jon Hans and "Jane Doe" added to their arsenal, the State has a stronger case than the last time. Craig Hum has had an opportunity to soften the blow of the errors in the cops' testimony. The H-bomb-class evidence wasn't detonated last time, thereby creating the presumption that it does not exist except in the mind of Ted Jong-ILL.
This case hangs by a thread.
CI: Ken, I take issue with something you said. It has nothing to do with this case ---- just in general. It is my belief that lying in any court (family court or not) is not okay. Lying under the penalty of perjury is just that. Judges do not like being lied to whether it is family court or something else. While it is true that people are not prosecuted for those lies, they certainly go to the credibility of the witness.
CI, there is no one who abhors this reality more than I, as I have been personally victimized by it. That having been said, to ignore the facts is illogical. Cam lied under penalty of perjury when he swore out that complaint against Sarah; I don't see you losing your cookies over it. If you're scoring at home, Cam is just as much of a liar as Sarah -- and the jury is entitled to view him as a vindictive bastard, to boot. Given the choice you gave them, their sympathies are going to lie with Sarah.
The stark reality is that a lot of what is said in family court is outright perjury. Financial affidavits are often prepared by paralegals who don't have a freakin' clue about accounting or budgeting, and most attorneys are former PoliSci or Communications majors who have no understanding of accounting principles. As it can be difficult to distinguish between stupidity and malice in these cases -- even Einstein didn't understand the income tax -- our legal system gives the parties a wide latitude, trusting in the judge to cut through the bullshit.
It is what it is, CI. I never said that I considered it okay.
More sanctimonious dithering:
CI writes: "It is my belief that lying in any court (family court or not) is not okay. Lying under the penalty of perjury is just that."
First of all, the child support issues are not generally resolved in an actual courtroom under actual trial conditions; most of the time the plaintiff and defendant just fill out forms and make guesses about income. Sometimes they provide documentation. This is not an exact science. It's also true that Cam Brown lied on a number of occasions - about the amount of time he spent with his child, about his alleged injury that was going to lower his income (or his alleged disability), and I'm sure I coud discover several others if I bothered to review the paperwork we discovered about the couples' income and assets awhile back.
Cam also lied about what happened between him and Sarah at the infamous motorcycle incident.
So, it's ok for Cam to lie, because he's not under oath, right? But it's perjury and obstruction of justice when witnesses lie, right?
Put him on the stand. Let's see how truthful he is. This is your only salvation.
Ken, I take issue with something you said. It has nothing to do with this case ---- just in general. It is my belief that lying in any court (family court or not) is not okay. Lying under the penalty of perjury is just that. Judges do not like being lied to whether it is family court or something else. While it is true that people are not prosecuted for those lies, they certainly go to the credibility of the witness.
For all intents and purposes, the defense does not really have to put on a case at all if the case the state presents is weak. The burden is entirely on the People to prove that Brown deliberately set out to harm his daughter rather than was the victim of a terrible accident.
So, if you guys want to sit back and scoff at the People's case, that's entirely your right. Brown doesn't have to take the stand, he doesn't have to present any evidence that the injuries Lauren sustained had to have been inflicted by a trip and fall, he doesn't have to explain his relationship with Sarah or his bizarre affect after the tragedy - you know there's no playbook for grief.
I have no problem with this strategy. It should be fine, if the case the People presents is so weak or so full of lies or junk science or so obviously flawed. I mean, no problem, right?
Yet, that's not your strategy, is it? No. Your strategy is to protest vehemently, make accusations and hurl invective at everyone and anyone who thinks Brown did it, and then you go as far as to dangle this absurd "PROOF" idea in front of us as if there is some Perry Mason moment awaiting us at the eleventh hour.
Which is, of course, ludicrous (as Mark Geragos likes to say. He likes that word, 'ludicrous' a lot. By the way, next time you see him, tell him I send him my warm regards. TIA.
Anyway, guess what? Guess who will have to take the stand in order for any of your voluminous work of the past few years to make an iota of sense?
You got it. Cammy. Get him up there. Otherwise, spare me the faux outrage. I get enough of that from cable teebee.
Jobeth: CI, I appreciate that you don't want to engage in 'tit for tat' arguments, but at the same time, your contention is that things that have already occurred paint a different picture than what Sprocket has said because she missed some things. I'm absolutely willing to consider all the evidence, and I've already admitted my bias, but it's just that - a bias, not a conviction. My mind can be changed. If it's already happened, and it's already out there, and it's mitigating evidence, then I just can't understand what the big deal is about giving us a summary of what was missed that would skew things the other way. I'm not asking for defense strategy to be revealed. I'm not asking for yet-to-be-seen evidence to be relayed. I'm asking for a summary or overview of the statements made by witnesses that have already been crossed that you, Patty & Ted say provided a different picture than Sprocket's material has painted. Nothing nefarious.
I concur wholeheartedly. What we're seeing through Sprocket's eyes is a case on the verge of being lost by the defense. And again, I emphasize: Not "won by the prosecution," but "lost by the defense."
CI, I appreciate that you don't want to engage in 'tit for tat' arguments, but at the same time, your contention is that things that have already occurred paint a different picture than what Sprocket has said because she missed some things. I'm absolutely willing to consider all the evidence, and I've already admitted my bias, but it's just that - a bias, not a conviction. My mind can be changed. If it's already happened, and it's already out there, and it's mitigating evidence, then I just can't understand what the big deal is about giving us a summary of what was missed that would skew things the other way. I'm not asking for defense strategy to be revealed. I'm not asking for yet-to-be-seen evidence to be relayed. I'm asking for a summary or overview of the statements made by witnesses that have already been crossed that you, Patty & Ted say provided a different picture than Sprocket's material has painted. Nothing nefarious.
You say that like the GJ testimony, we're only seeing one side of the evidence in some cases. I'm *asking* to see the other side. Not upcoming, but already revealed. I just don't see how that can be construed as an unreasonable request. But right now, you're pointing at invisible pink unicorns in your garage. Only the garage door is shut, the lights are off, and the windows are boarded up. I'm just supposed to believe on faith that yes, the invisible pink unicorns ARE there, a few of you have seen evidence of them. I'm just asking to see the evidence myself.
CI: Quite frankly, I don't think anyone who matters cares what you think. This is about what the jurors think.
And the jurors have good reason to think that Cam murdered Lauren. That is clear from Sprocket's detailed and incisive observations.
Moreover, the jurors have no good reason to think that the parade of non-cop witnesses, including Jon Hans and Jane Doe, were lying to them. Everyone lies in family court, so they won't think too evil of Sarah. Cam lied when he filed the false police report, as established by the tape of Sarah's confrontation with him at LAX. If you're counting on Det. Leslie to do what Mark Fuhrmann did for O.J., think again.
The jurors have eyes. And we have them in the courtroom this time, courtesy of Sprocket.
CI: Pat Harris isn't that stupid. [That last statement was directed to Ken.]
And neither am I. Whether you want to hear it or not, Pat Harris is telling us how the trial is going by his actions. The motion for a mistrial bordered on the ludicrous, and Drama Queen Cam did not endear himself to the judge with his antics.
Remember the Kaldis Rule: "Never ask the Court for anything that you aren't certain you won't get." (Of course, there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception" to EVERY Kaldis Rule.)
CI: Some of the main points last time around (that all of you hung your hats on) aren't even in play this time. You would have argued points to your death which turned out to be nothing more than bs.
While this comment was presumptively aimed at Loretta, it borders on the incoherent. The case is and always has been an Occam's Razor case, and Craig Hum has given the jury ample reason to conclude that Lauren was murdered by a "planner." Whether it is enough remains to be seen, but Harris' utterance of that one idle word has increased the chances of conviction by an order of magnitude.
Cam knew exactly where he was going. He knew the location of the archery range. He knew that it was a better place to stage an "accident" than Portuguese Point. And he was a "planner." Which is why he went so far out of his way. He didn't have to worry about Lauren's stamina, because he knew that she was never coming home. You can take that one right out of Hum's summation. That's what you're facing.
You have accused a number of witnesses of "lying," even though no meaningful quantum of credible evidence to this effect has been presented to the jury. But then again, this is not remarkable. This is and has been the M.O. of Team Cam for the past five-plus years: Throw enough shit against the wall (against everyone from RPV's city fathers to even Loretta) and hopefully, some of it will stick.
That last statement was directed to Ken.
The deck was stacked in Torrance. Judge Pastor isn't playing that game. Some of the main points last time around (that all of you hung your hats on) aren't even in play this time. You would have argued points to your death which turned out to be nothing more than bs. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone who matters cares what you think. This is about what the jurors think.
Pat Harris isn't that stupid.
CI writes:
Let's just say this. There will be a time when we speak openly, armed with PROOF of what happened. Until then, we are not going to be engaged in tit-for-tat arguments and accused of lying. Our point of view has always been that the whole truth and nothing but the truth be aired. We are not into making up stories or creating drama to satisfy the empty hole.
Well, ummm, if I'm not mistaken, there is a trial going on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a trial the place where this so-called "PROOF" is to be demonstrated? And, if I haven't been asleep for three years, wasn't there already a trial where this so-called "PROOF" could have been shown? What the heck are you talkiing about? Why did the defendant pay Mark Geragos $500 an hour or whatever outrageous amount he charged to NOT show this "PROOF"?
That's just crazy and nobody is going to buy that. If Geragos were that incompetent, he should be sued for malpractice. Or, at least, get your money back. This idea that Team Cam cannot speak openly after you have already been through one trial and now claim that there is PROOF of "what happened" and have spent the past 4 years now making this claim.
Well, sorry, but it's the boy who cried wolf all over again. We just don't believe you. I guess that means I think you are lying.
CI: There will be a time when we speak openly, armed with PROOF of what happened. Until then, we are not going to be engaged in tit-for-tat arguments and accused of lying. Our point of view has always been that the whole truth and nothing but the truth be aired. We are not into making up stories or creating drama to satisfy the empty hole.
Good grief, CI! Jobeth has been around long enough to know Ted's act. Ted has been dreaming up an endless stream of patently ridiculous -- and, in many cases, easily disprovable -- accusations about everyone associated with the prosecution for five years. Furthermore, you will never have proof of what happened unless Cam confesses to murder, as only two people know what transpired, and dead girls tell no tales.
I'm not sure how you would ever counter the amply-supported accusation that Patty wanted to steal Lauren for her own. Putting Patty on the stand means explaining the "voodoo kit," among other things, and opens up a major-league can of worms. Given the assessment of Cam by a supporter as not being the sharpest tool in the shed, putting him on the stand would border on malpractice. And given the deplorable footprint Ted has left on the 'Net, you can forget about using him as a character reference; he has no character to reference.
CI: In other words, it's much like reading the GJ transcript, you only get half the picture.
Again, what you are showing us is a picture that makes no earthly sense. Based on what we know from the last trial, the cross of Leslie (missed due to Sprocket's need to take care of kitty) should have been the defense's best day. The cross of Sarah wasn't going to be particularly explosive; everyone lies in family court. But even still, that should have been the defense's second-best day.
I'm trying to make sense of Harris' (and Cam's) bizarre outbursts, the motion to remove Sarah from the courtroom, and the seemingly frivolous motion for a mistrial.
You have admitted that Sprocket is doing a fantastic job, as is Judge Pastor. I wholeheartedly concur on both counts, and have told Sprocket as much. Given that the sessions she missed should have been Harris' best, and nothing in those sessions should have triggered the outbursts, we are left with an effect without a cause.
Every witness Hum has put on has added something of value to the case. Virtually everything Hum has elicited from the witnesses has been admissible. Harris has lost the vast majority of his motions and frankly, he should have. Judges have enormous latitude in managing their courtrooms; even Ted concedes that Sarah shouldn't have been asked to leave. I don't see anything that even comes close to justifying what we've seen. There shouldn't be any missing link here.
Based on what we do know -- and what can be inferred by what we don't -- it appears that it is attributable to frustration. Harris is effectively admitting that he has taken one too many arrows, and can't fight off the onslaught. Even if you know you're getting your ass kicked, you never let the jury see it.
Jobeth, do not misinterpret anything said here. Sprocket's work is appreciated very much. She does a heck of a good job imo. She did miss some days (or half days) when the cross was done on a witness. In other words, it's much like reading the GJ transcript, you only get half the picture. From experience I know that what we say means little to those who have their mind made up. I would have preferred to see Sprocket there for all of it. I can understand that she wasn't for personal reasons, and that's good enough for me.
Let's just say this. There will be a time when we speak openly, armed with PROOF of what happened. Until then, we are not going to be engaged in tit-for-tat arguments and accused of lying. Our point of view has always been that the whole truth and nothing but the truth be aired. We are not into making up stories or creating drama to satisfy the empty hole.
You are right. This is about a little girl who deserves nothing less than the whole truth. This is about people who are grieving the loss of that little girl. This is about a man who was targeted from the first hours after Lauren's death. When you don't know all of the circumstances, it's pretty hard to be a fair judge by only seeing one side of the story.
I wish the judge and the jury great wisdom and peace in their determination. At least we believe Cam has finally been given an opportunity to be heard fairly. It makes a big difference.
CI: You and others were forming opinions and screaming in public about those opinions LONG before there was anything available by which to make your judgments.
I would have never heard about this case, were it not for The Fat Fuck screaming about it on the 'Net for the past six years.
CI: He didn't call for a mistrial for no good reason, although we certainly don't want one!
All he managed to do is piss off the judge. Why is there ALWAYS a baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception to every single Kaldis Rule?
Jobeth: Seriously. If you're going to insist that the sky is pink with green polka dots, you're gonna have to show me the pictures if you want me to believe you. If you can't show me the pictures, then I'm going to go with the person who IS showing me the pictures, and your protestations to the contrary are that much noise. It is what it is.
"Put up or shut up" has never worked with Team Cam. You must not have been around for Ted's Preparation-H Bomb:
Ted: At a pre-trial hearing? Unfortunately, no. The "H-bomb" class evidence is still there, waiting to be set off. And it is DEVASTATING!
Wayne: If it's really H-bomb class and not Preparation-H class, why hasn't Cameron retracted the speedy trial waiver? Or has he learned to LIKE prison life too much and doesn't want to leave? Seems like retracting the waiver is in his interest if he wants to get out of prison sooner.
Of course, Kim Jong-Il's scientists devised it; naturally, it fell far short of expectations.
CI: Let's just all wait until they finish throwing shit against the wall before concluding what will stick. It's pretty much a crap shoot at this point. Jurors hate being lied to.
And what makes you think Cam's good friend Jon Hans lied? Jane Doe? The Montessori ladies? The babysitter? Even if the jury concludes that the cops did what cops do, there is more than enough there for a murder conviction. The claims regarding Patty's intention to wrest custody of Lauren from Sarah come from at least four sources corroborating one another.
I hate being lied to ... and I've been fed an incessant stream of lies from Team Cam for as long as I can recall. By stark contrast, a lot of this "shit" is going to "stick" BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE!
Is it enough to convict? Yes. Will the jurors convict? I don't have a clue, nor do I have a firm opinion at this time. Did Judge Pastor commit reversible error in not granting the motion for a mistrial? Based on what we know, it wasn't even close:
“We review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citations.] ‘A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We have explained that “[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953; accord, People v. Harris (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1575, 1581 [“Whether in a given case the erroneous admission of . . . evidence [of the defendant’s prior criminality] warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured by striking the testimony and admonishing the jury rests in the sound discretion of the trial court”].) “[A] witness’s volunteered statement can . . . provide the basis for a finding of incurable prejudice.” (People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 565.)The standard is incurable prejudice, and appellate courts are even more deferential than usual. All of the evidence put on so far and reported on by Sprocket is logically relevant, even if it does paint Cam as a man of execrable personal character. Again, I'm not seeing any Ed Hoechuli-class bad calls, and you seem satisfied as to how Pastor is running his court. Stop whining about the "shit," because it is legal for Hum to throw it and a good portion of it is going to "stick."
Well, if I had the transcripts, of course I would post them - again, it's public information. No shit it's not about me - it's about a 4 year old child who lost her life. That's ALL it's about.
But allegations have been made that Sprocket hasn't gotten the whole picture - if someone's going to claim we're not seeing the whole picture, then great! SHOW us what we're missing, or at least describe it for us.
Otherwise, we only have what Sprocket is saying to go on, and she is giving lots and lots of detail, so I have no reason to disbelieve her. The actions of Cam's attorney do not indicate someone who is in charge and managing the jury properly to best serve his client. It's possible I'm wrong and that there's things I'm missing because I'm not getting all the detail - but Sprocket is giving us as much detail as she can...this is a 'put your money where your mouth is' kind of deal. What's happening in the courtroom is public information. If you're telling us that things are going on that explain what Sprocket is seeing in a much more positive light than it appears, then give us the information, give us the detail or an overview of what we haven't seen that mitigates what we ARE hearing...or it didn't happen.
Seriously. If you're going to insist that the sky is pink with green polka dots, you're gonna have to show me the pictures if you want me to believe you. If you can't show me the pictures, then I'm going to go with the person who IS showing me the pictures, and your protestations to the contrary are that much noise. It is what it is.
I do trials for a living. I know what to look for. I know how to read a jury. I know how to interpret body language. I may be predisposed to a particular point of view because I've already seen all the evidence, but that doesn't mean I can't have my mind changed. So give me something to sway me the other way, or quit whining that we're not being swayed by an absence of data.
Ken, you have no idea what Harris was reacting to and I can assure you it is evident by what you say. Once again, Sprocket missed some background that accounts for his very appropriate response. He wasn't born yesterday, ya know. He didn't fall off the turnip truck in the middle of Arkansas. He didn't call for a mistrial for no good reason, although we certainly don't want one! You are reading between the wrong lines.
Let's just all wait until they finish throwing shit against the wall before concluding what will stick. It's pretty much a crap shoot at this point. Jurors hate being lied to.
We are NOT competing with anyone for public opinion. We want the truth to come before the jury first and foremost. You and others were forming opinions and screaming in public about those opinions LONG before there was anything available by which to make your judgments. That is your game, but anonymous is right ---- this isn't about you.
Anonymous: Because this isn't about you.
On this, I agree. But why even bother to keep this blog up, unless you are going to compete for public opinion? Right now, things are looking bleak for Team Cam, even if you assume that they scored handily on the days we didn't see. Harris' meltdowns are the strongest evidence of that.
Jobeth: IF Sprocket missed testimony that would explain Harris' demeanor
Not bloody likely. She missed the first part of Day Three:
#2, #3, #4 (collectively, Fiorella Miletich; Jacquine Martin; Marlene Quiram; all know the victim from her school, Christian Montasori School, in Costa Mesa; testimony complete)Not very important. She missed the cross of Jessica Brothers on Day Five, and the cross of Jeff Leslie on Day Eight due to her duties as Kitty's servant. We know pretty much what Brothers and Leslie were asked about in the first trial, and the "LA cops are incompetent" theme only goes so far.
I'm expecting that Harris got what Geragos got; there's no particular reason for him to be upset with the outcome there because those should have been his strongest days. No reason for him to blow a gasket over his best opportunities to attack.
Right now, everything Sprocket has posted points to the jury seeing things the way we're seeing them (not a good thing for Cam), so why not give us the parts we're missing that are bolstering Cam's defense?Because this isn't about you. So if someone does order the transcripts and it turns out that things aren't as you are imagining will you post them on the internet for everyone see, or will you bury them because they prove you wrong, and just highlight the parts that by themselves create the impression that you've got it right? BTW, I heard that the transcripts are $450 a day.
Invasion of the Baby-Snatchers (more)
Sprocket: CH: After the unsupervised visits started, did Lauren ever say something unusual to you?
LAO: One time before the visit to England. [...] We'd gone to church. [...] Lauren came up to me, and she put her hands like this, (witness demonstrates her hands over her nose and face area, like a tee-pee) and she said to me, "My Papa Cameron going to put my mommy in jail. Greg is just my step dad. Josh is just my step brother. Papa Cameron (is my) new daddy. Patty is my new mommy."
I have to agree with Ken, CI - IF Sprocket missed testimony that would explain Harris' demeanor, and provide additional information which would put Cam in a better light, what is the reticence to at least giving us an overview of what was missed, if specifics can't be provided? It's all public record, and if Loretta (or anyone else) orders the transcripts, we will see it, so why hold back? What purpose does it serve, and how does it help us get a better picture of what's going on in the courtroom? Right now, everything Sprocket has posted points to the jury seeing things the way we're seeing them (not a good thing for Cam), so why not give us the parts we're missing that are bolstering Cam's defense?
Sprocket makes an insightful observation:
While the tape did pull at my heart strings, what I think is more important to the investigation is what Brown did, after the confrontation by Sarah.It seems as if Cam came down with KalDisease.
The defendant lied to an LAX police officer about what transpired between him and Ms. Key-Marer.
The defendant lied about what Sarah did and said.
A month-and-a-half later, the defendant willingly signed a statement that said Sarah threatened to kill him.
'Elf: I can't envision anyone in the Kaldis Klan coming to the conclusion that silence is best, so it's more likely that Harris said, "SHUT UP!"
You pretty much have to do one thing or the other. If Team Cam said nothing, and said that they were saying nothing on express orders from counsel (that is what I would be advising them to do), everyone would respect that. If they dutifully posted all of their notes to supplant Sprocket's work, everyone could respect that, as well. Baring it all is a way of declaring that they have nothing to hide, and will place their trust in the good sense of their audience. Their current strategy is counterproductive -- embodying the pitfalls of both. Jon Hans is the predictable by-product of trying to deal from the bottom of the deck.
The horse is out of the barn; they are doing more harm than even the Peterson clan did. They just need to be smarter. A man is on trial for his life here, and they have to get over themselves and get out of the way.
CI: As for the rest of it, I will not comment.
I've never really been sanguine about this lukewarm and amateurish strategy. If you don't come forward and bare all, you might as well not even be in the arena.
You say that Sprocket has missed some key things, and that if we knew what they were, we'd be less inclined to adjudge Cam guilty. (As I am making it a point to withhold judgment, leaving that to the sound discretion of the jury, I'll consider myself an exception to this.) Problem is, we have a series of disturbing meltdowns by Pat Harris which offer us an insight into how HE thinks the case is going, and Ted lied to us again about the force of Jane Doe's testimony (it obviously hit like a ton of bricks). And on the testimony we know about, all we hear is crickets?
Jobeth is right: Too many things "just don't add up" on Cam's side of the equation. Too many implausible things have to happen to even get Lauren anywhere near Inspiration Point. And the testimony that Cam is "a planner" -- coming from Harris himself! -- may prove to be his epitaph.
Jobeth: And where's Ted? He hasn't explained to us yet how Jon Hans' & Jane Doe's testimony "fizzled". I'm honestly interested in his take on that.
I'm equally interested, but more for entertainment purposes than anything else. You have to understand that Ted is a legend in his own mind, and isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. When he gets cornered, his attempts to extricate himself tend to be downright hilarious, as with the infamous "electric beer" incident. Suddenly, words have no meaning.
I can't wait for the inevitable whine from Team Cam that Jobeth is just another "plant."
While I would caution readers, that this case isn't over yet, and that the threshold needed to gain acquittal is a low one, things are beginning to look bleak for the defense.
The PYSIH poll establishes the problem the defense faces:
So, Is Cameron Brown An Evil, Greedy Prick Who Deserves To Burn In Hell Forever?This unscientific poll (the no vote was obviously from someone associated with Team Cam) should give you a pretty realistic indication of where the jury's head is at. Jon Hans' testimony -- which never would have been received, but for Ted's contumacious refusal to remove his testimonial -- has given them a brand-new villain, and it is difficult to see how the defense even can refute it without contemplating some high-risk tactical options.
Oh yeah, big time. (99.0%, 169 Votes)
No, it was a terrible accident. (1.0%, 1 Votes)
Team Cam claims the motorcycle incident didn't happen as it was related by independent witnesses, but the only witnesses who can rebut it are Cam and Patty themselves. Ditto, the testimony of Jon Hans. Poor Ted! "Wounds from a friend are to be trusted." The Bible gets in Ted's way yet again.
Does Harris put either or both on the stand? Without their coming to bat, virtually all of the really bad circumstantial evidence goes unrefuted. Putting Mom on the stand to say that he's always been an irresponsible kid who doesn't have parenting skills isn't going to cut it.
While this trial is far from over, Hum has had a better innings than expected so far. That Harris has had several melt-downs gives us a fair indication that he knows it, and is at a loss as to how to combat it.
I will only be responding to one thing. The motorcycle incident. It never happened that way. It's been discussed before so I will reiterate. Patty was running late and had the car so Cam went ahead on the motorcycle to make sure Lauren was picked up on time. Patty showed up with the car not long after. Cam never intended to take Lauren on the motorcycle, and he didn't.
I'm going to fall back on a Judge Judy-ism. If something doesn't make sense, it's not true. And that whole statement just doesn't make any sense at all. If Patty had the car & was running late, why didn't Cam just call ahead and say 'we're running late, we'll be there about XX'? How would running over there on the bike do anything to make sure Lauren is picked up on time if he can't really pick her up since he wasn't going to take her on the bike, per your statement? He's going to sit on the front lawn with her until Patty gets there? And then do what with the bike?
And why is PATTY picking Lauren up? I doubt that's in the order, anywhere. If Patty has the car, Cam should wait for her to pick him up, and then go get Lauren, because he should be in the car with the two of them, Patty has no legal relationship to Lauren, and wasn't on the visitation order, as far as I'm aware.
Still too many things that don't add up, there.
And where's Ted? He hasn't explained to us yet how Jon Hans' & Jane Doe's testimony "fizzled". I'm honestly interested in his take on that.
CI: The motorcycle incident. It never happened that way. It's been discussed before so I will reiterate. Patty was running late and had the car so Cam went ahead on the motorcycle to make sure Lauren was picked up on time. Patty showed up with the car not long after. Cam never intended to take Lauren on the motorcycle, and he didn't.
And the jury will find out about this exactly how?
What you claim to have happened doesn't matter overmuch. As far as the jury is concerned, the incident happened in the way it was related by disinterested witnesses.
I will only be responding to one thing. The motorcycle incident. It never happened that way. It's been discussed before so I will reiterate. Patty was running late and had the car so Cam went ahead on the motorcycle to make sure Lauren was picked up on time. Patty showed up with the car not long after. Cam never intended to take Lauren on the motorcycle, and he didn't.
As for the rest of it, I will not comment.
Oh, one more thing. This comment section has been up since last year. We discussed many things during that time. A lot has been discussed about wrongful incarcerations of innocent people because it is of interest. DNA has nothing to do with this case. Much of the chatter has nothing to do with this case.
Excerpt of Jon Hans' comment on Loretta's blog in August 2006:
I have tried to get my letter taken off of Ted's website for a long time now, but he refuses to remove it. Who knows how many other letter writers have had the same experience with Ted. If Ted would have removed my letter, I would have just watched this whole thing play out (with, hopefully Lauren's family getting some type of justice. My feeling is that once the jury goes up to that bluff, they will have to convict Cameron Brown for murder). That is in a large part why I am writing this letter, it is because of Ted. It also seems that any of the current letters of support come from "anonymous" is this also Ted?Talk about unintended consequences. The odds are overwhelming that the only reason Hans is testifying is because Ted is such a raging asshole, and that odds are good that a conviction may result from his testimony.
KC: No getting around that one- how do you keep the blinders on?
Ted has had a lifetime of practice; he has never met a fact he wouldn't ignore at need.
People You'll See In Hell ( http://pysih.com/2009/08/12/came...ron-john-brown/ ). Check out the poll -- Pat Buchanan would have gotten more votes in Dade County!
“Cameron Brown Trial” is the best blog of it’s type I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen my fair share of them performing my job as editor for PYSIH. These two ladies are able to walk a fine line between informing the reader of the facts surround the murder of little Lauren Key and rebutting the people who have chosen to sell their souls to the devil and support Cameron Brown, particularly his wife, Patty Kaldis and his brother-in-law, Ted Kaldis. AND they’ve managed to have quite a bit of fun at said supporter’s expenses at the same time – these are two very funny ladies.You can sort-of tell who's winning the P.R. battle here. If this is what the public thinks, chances are that it's probably what the jury is thinking.
I've been up and down these postings (newbie, here), and I'll be danged if I can figure out what relevance all this discussion of DNA exonerations has here. State isn't saying she was molested by Daddy, just that Daddy picked her up and threw her off a cliff (which seems ever more clear to me AFTER looking at all the graphs, etc. so helpfully provided on this site.) You don't address the witness statements, that she was following Daddy (not the other way around as he had stated), the child's scream (no seagull, that- why Mr. Omar sat back down is because he heard no follow-up cries, like "Help!", "Oh, no!", etc., that one would expect to hear IF there had indeed been an accident!), Daddy's lies about EVERYTHING (the taped confrontation with Sara, for just one, that she had threatened him- there are many), on and on. Never mind his demeanor this whole time- I believe the term is "depraved", his utter lack of emotion. Picking up a child on a motorcycle- with no helmet? Mr. Kaldis, that is depraved. No getting around that one- how do you keep the blinders on?
You want to make it worse? Craig Hum pretty much has to visit Loretta's site this week, out of self-defense. Our noticing the "planner" comment means he will pick up on it, even if he missed it in the bustle of the courtroom.
As we say in golf, "Loretta hit the ball on the screws":
What I find more interesting about Hans's testimony is his impression of Patty Brown. Hans believes that Patty was the instigator of this tragedy and that if Brown had never met and married Patty, that Lauren would be alive today.Patty is now the ultimate villain in this case, as I suggested on 8/10. Whereas a single Cam Brown would have let Lauren go in a heartbeat, childless Patty would have none of it. This predicament is even worse if Cam married Patty for love; when you're in that state (been there for thirty years), your spouse's wishes tend to come before your own. Cam had only one way out ... but for poor little Lauren, it was only a long way down.
Hans reiterated a conversation he had with Patty and Cam where she claimed that the couple were going to gain full custody of Lauren because of alleged abuse Lauren suffered at the hands of Sarah. This was, of course, complete nonsense, and I have written extensively about how impossible this scenario was in the real world. In brief, there was no way the court would remove a child at the tender age of four from her custodial parent and turn her over to her biological father and his new wife over specious allegations (later disproved) of abuse. It was also unrealistic for Cam and Patty to seek even joint custody at this stage, considering the relatively short time Cam had spent with Lauren, and the fact that they'd have to move closer to Sarah to ensure that Lauren's transition would be as seamless as possible. Hans also mentions that the couple were planning to move to Utah, a fact that also belies the "full custody" plans. There is no way a court would let Cam move Lauren out of state.
And Cam is a "planner."
How in the hell do you fight that?
If you put Patty on the stand, Hum asks about the voodoo kit and the searches. If she looks like Norbert's wife (which can reasonably be inferred at this point), and she continues to behave churlishly in the courtroom, it is not going to help.
Harris' only hope is to try to discredit John Hans, and the only way to do that is to reach out into cyberspace.
Jobeth [from Loretta's blog]: Now, Ken, let's be fair - after you called him on all the electric beer/Jethro Tull nonsense, he backtracked and stated that HE had never "dropped acid", but that people *at the concert* were drinking electric beer, however much he seemed to be implying he was among that group. Don't be a mendacious prevaricator!
Who do we believe -- Ted Kaldis ... or Ted Kaldis?
That's the problem, Jobeth! I don't know WHAT the truth is with that guy! It's a recurring pattern: He makes a statement, offering it as true; when I point out the inexorable consequences of it, he backtracks like Champ Bailey in response to a Tom Brady bomb. He may have lied at the outset, but it is more likely that he partook; I've been to many concerts, and have pretty much always shared the herring (the last was at an Elton John concert in Vegas, for which we were comped primo ducats). If you are eighteen, you'll take the drink. I mean, how could he have known that the beer was laced with acid if he didn't drink it? Who IS this guy: Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton? ROTFLMAO!!!
If Ted could tell the truth with a compass and a road map, I might be more inclined to believe him, but over more than a decade of USENET encounters, he has established himself as an incorrigible sociopath.
Given two contradictory statements, you have to take the one that appears more plausible, and the "electric beer was passed to me, and I drank it, because I was about 18-20" statement is by far the most plausible. Ted was a stoner back then, as you could see from photos that have long since disappeared from the 'net. And what "insight" would he have had regarding Tull's music which could only be gleaned from an altered state of perception?
Jobeth [from Loretta's blog]: Yeah, I'd love to hear Ted's explanation as to how Friday's testimony "fizzled". Because if I'm on the jury hearing about how a guy was distraught and crying over an abortion, but how he could NEVER muster a tear for a daughter that went over a cliff and whose dead body he held in his arms...even if he was in shock at the scene, eventually you'd think it would have hit him, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Every time you hear about Sara in conjunction with Lauren, Sara tears up. She cries. She can't help it. Haven't heard that *once* about Cameron.
You have to see the world through Ted's eyes, which apparently requires that you drop bad acid and have periodic flashbacks, have some of your brain cells perish on account of your purported death, and have others eradicated through heavy abuse of Wild Turkey and amyl nitrate. None of us can even begin to do it; he is an enigma to us all.
But hey, it can't hurt to ask.
Ken: Like it or not, it is evidence, and admissible (subject to the limits in CA's version of Rule 403).
CI: Since I don't believe you know what they were talking about, I don't believe you can say that with any authority.
I don't have to; Judge Pastor did. Every evidentiary ruling stands on its own, and upon appeal, virtually every error is dismissed as harmless error. There's nothing even close to mistrial-level evidence coming in that we have seen (through Sprocket) to this point.
This part is going to be fun:
Sprocket:(I have a note here that I just remembered. In Harris's argument about the testimony of this witness and the character assassination, Harris stated that he is now going to add thirty plus names to the defense witness list.)Anyone fancy a trip to SoCal, courtesy of Cameron and Patty Brown? I will insist upon being put up at the Sheraton, and accept nothing less than a first-class ticket.
Imagine putting me on that stand. I do a lot of hiking. I see a lot of kids on hikes, running and laughing for the first 500 meters ... and being carried by Dad a mile later. I'd basically have to verify the testimony of Dr. Berkowitz, because it comports with my experience. Not good for Cam.
Imagine my having to testify that this is an Occam's Razor case, where there are two and only two possible explanations for the facts at issue. Imagine me explaining that the expert testimony regarding the toss doesn't mean a thing, as long as the jury is convinced that the hike was more Cam's idea than Lauren's. This would all come in on cross, if Harris' plan is to paint our writings as "character assassination."
And I can hardly wait to testify on cross about all of Kook Kaldis' Kornspiracy Theories. The RPV Conservatory theory. The "RPV city fathers wanted to go after him to avoid liability" theory, and how it was disproven by RPV being in a Lloyd's-like insurance pool, and the inconvenient fact that the statute of limitations had run on any action in tort. The "Craig Hum is taking this dog of a case so he can run for D.A. theory," and how it was disproven by a two-minute google. And to make matters worse, Team Cam couldn't lead me. Imagine this hypothetical exchange:
LV: And where did you get the bulk of your information on this case?I'd be there for a freakin' week!
KS: Mostly, from the defendant's brother-in-law Ted Kaldis ... with one caveat: If Ted says the sky is blue, you would be wise to seek a second opinion.
"anony" (Patty) has her cover blown in open court. Hum gets to depose Ted and CI regarding all the things they have said about this case. I have a dossier on Ted that I will be more than happy to furnish to Hum. You and Ted would be valid rebuttal witnesses, though no one can force Patty to testify.
Cynical Hedonist comes in to testify about Cam throwing a backpack out the window -- a pattern with this guy, who throws things for a living.
I can't think of anything more hare-brained than Harris' latest move, if Sprocket has it right.
The new witnesses hurt, and "Jane Doe" appears to have been devastating:
Sprocket: CH: Was there a time (that you) had some (of your things) in the cabin? [...] (What happened?)Okay, so Cam is a liar with an anger management problem. I had some of my belongings thrown out by the wife of a close friend who later came after him with a butcher knife. It is definitely relevant, and definitely admissible under Cal. Evid. Code. 1101(b).
JD: Cam told me a man named George, who had one arm... he rode a horse, was angry that we were staying in the cabin and threw belongings off the cliff.
The witness said the items were a radio, boom box and clothings.
JD: Cam had rode down and everything (was) brought back up.
CH: Did he have any explanation as to why only your belongings went over the cliff?
JD: No.
This trait does seem to run in the Kaldis Klan (again, from Sprocket):The witness states that there was something else he did, that started to bother her. He would follow her to places when she went out with friends. (From the testimony, I get the impression of stalking.)
I hate to tell you this, but Friday was NOT a good day for Team Cam. And no, Jane Doe did not "fizzle" ... except in the LSD-induced perception of The Oafsome One. He threw her freakin' possessions off a cliff?! Broke into her apartment?! Bashed up her freakin' car? Okay, so "Daddy Warbucks" bailed this galaxy-class loser out again. Cam Brown has a serious anger-management problem -- one that would make you believe that he murdered Lauren.
Like it or not, it is evidence, and admissible (subject to the limits in CA's version of Rule 403).Since I don't believe you know what they were talking about, I don't believe you can say that with any authority. However, I'm staying mute.
I have no problem with the judge. He is attentive, concerned and in control.
CI: Unfortunately, Ken, you (and Sprocket) have missed some very critical moments so some of what has happened in the courtroom has gone over your head....no fault of your own.
I can only use the light I have at my disposal; all of my observations are subject to that caveat. That having been said, this is the judge you have waited three years ago, and I have yet to see him make a bad call. I really wouldn't complain overmuch about the trial you have been getting.
CI: Ken, what makes you think the reference was to anything going on today?
I obviously don't know what is going on right now as we speak. According to Sprocket, Harris was complaining, "and he gets involved with this Internet nut." Whatever happens on the 'Net has stark, raving nothing to do with what happens in the courtroom, and complaining about doings in cyberspace is staggeringly pointless.
PH (per Sprocket): I don't know how I can combat this! It's getting out of control. He's (Hum) going to put on anyone that's ever said anything bad about Mr. Brown! This is just character assissination! I don't think it's relevant. It's gone way beyond the evidence.
Like it or not, it is evidence, and admissible (subject to the limits in CA's version of Rule 403).
Any evidence that makes it more likely that Cam would have taken Lauren up that cliff for the purposes of staging or engineering an "accident" is relevant, and ought to be heard. Also, any evidence that makes it less likely that Lauren was throwing rocks off that cliff of her own volition and at her own prompting is also admissible. Cam's demeanor is fair game, pretty much for the same reason. Though I have to rely on Sprocket for the particulars, I haven't seen Judge Pastor make a single bad call.
What you guys don't get is that the jury could ignore the expert testimony and still convict him of second-degree depraved heart murder in a heartbeat. Think putting a couple of loaded six-shooters into a room of seven-year-old boys.
Ken, what makes you think the reference was to anything going on today? Just asking.
CI: What is "nutz" is to make that determination with so little of the detail.
Not in this instance. Our friends John and Ken could be doing "all Cam Brown, all the time" and it wouldn't matter one whit. Jurors aren't supposed to know what is going on outside the courtroom, and if this is a problem, the proper remedy is sequestration. Put 'em up in the Hyatt downtown and control what they see.
With regard to testimony that was missed, it's very important to us that there is a clear and full record. I respect the work Sprocket is doing, even in spite of her inclinations to lean toward the prosecution. As I said earlier, I think that is something that all of us might have done at one time or another. I'm ready to collect bus/train money to keep her going!
I think some clarification of that might come later in Sprocket's notes. I don't think she missed that part of it, although she may have. I'm sorry, Jobeth, I don't want to mislead or confuse you. Let's see what Sprocket has in her next entry.
CI, I appreciate that she missed testimony (and she's very clear that she missed some days), the question is - what *specifically* did she miss? What was said in trial on the record that explains or justifies the outburst by Harrs? Or if you can't repeat/don't know specifics, at least in generalities?
I don't know if Loretta is going to be ordering trial transcripts this time around, but I'd definitely be interested in reading the days that Sprocket missed, if anyone else is going to get them.
Jobeth, she missed some of the testimony, both on the prosecution and defense sides. Some of that testimony was critical to understand other things.
What is "nutz" is to make that determination with so little of the detail. As I said, it will become more clear soon. I hope Sprocket sticks with it, but if she doesn't we will just have to wait.
Unfortunately, Ken, you (and Sprocket) have missed some very critical moments so some of what has happened in the courtroom has gone over your head....no fault of your own. Perhaps the reason Pat went ballistic will become more clear later.
CI - can you give us more detail on what Sprocket has missed?
CI: Perhaps the reason Pat went ballistic will become more clear later.
For an attorney to "go ballistic" at the judge in a courtroom is always a bad thing, CI. And for him to go ballistic over what he apparently did was as legally unsound as it was tactically. For Harris to whine about trial bloggers is just stark, raving NUTZ! By now, the judge has lost more than a little respect for him.
CI: Unfortunately, Ken, you (and Sprocket) have missed some very critical moments so some of what has happened in the courtroom has gone over your head....no fault of your own.
I would find it remarkable that Sprocket -- who is clearly doing the best job she can -- would miss so many key points for your side, while catching every last one of Hum's direct hits amidships. It is kind of like a cricket match: The other side is going to get their runs. You guys have to stop thinking otherwise.
Unfortunately, Ken, you (and Sprocket) have missed some very critical moments so some of what has happened in the courtroom has gone over your head....no fault of your own. Perhaps the reason Pat went ballistic will become more clear later. He is, btw, a very good lawyer. He has his heart and soul in the courtroom, no question about it. We all know the people who are working on Cam's behalf are not doing it for the money.
Sprocket: There's a sidebar. Juror #6 has their arms crossed. I watch the jurors watch the judge and counsel. ...
Harris hands the witness a document and tells him to focus on the highlighted material. As we are all waiting, I note that long delays in getting a case to trial always helps the defendant. People forget and their memories of events change.
Sprocket: The witness states that she and he husband taught bible school for about ten yearsThere goes that witness's credibility.
Sprocket: LR: Very timid and clingy to her mother. She was a girly type girl, not interested in getting dirty.Again, they are painting Lauren as a girl who wasn't inclined to do what she would have had to have done in order to have suffered an accident. Relevant and damning.
She states she would not describe her as adventurous. At the campground area, there was a hill that the kids could climb up. She organized a hiking trip for the kids, because she likes to hike and play with kids. She walked around to all the camp sites to ask who wanted to go. And she made an effort to get the kids excited about going on this hike.
CH: Did all the kids go on the hike?
LR: No. [...] Lauren didn't want to go at all.
CH: Why do you specifically remember that?
LR: Because she was the only child who didn't want to go.
Sprocket: The black-haired spectator speaks to me for a moment. She tells me she is retired and is really interested in criminal trials. She asks me who the mother of the child is and I describe Ms. Key-Marer. I had to inform her that the woman she was speaking to is the defendant's wife. She gets this surprised expression on her face.That's our Ted. Always the asshole.
The prior witness comes into the courtroom to sit with another woman. They sit in the front row. When Ted comes in, he asks them to move from his front row seat spot.
Sprocket: She left for Chille at the beginning of the new year, in 1996.This witness is a little more interesting than I thought: Cam knocked Sarah up while he was dating the Baywatch Babe. Aaaaaahhhhh! Born-again Christian morals on display.
Hum asks if there was anything that happened the month prior, in December. The defendant called her about a week before she was to leave.
CH: Describe his demeanor.
JB: He was upset.
CH: What did he tell you?
JB: He said that he had gotten someone pregnant. [...] He said that he wasn't ready to be a father. [...] He said that he had been dating her; that she was English. [...] He said that she wasn't going to be staying here legally because she didn't have a visa.
Sprocket: Harris asks for a sidebar again. He appears very irritated. Harris and Judge Pastor appear to be in somewhat of a heated discussion. Harris is shaking his head. It looks like Harris is not happy with Judge Pastor's rulings. I hear Judge Pastor say, "Motion for mistrial is denied!" Judge Pastor's tone doesn't sound happy with Harris.It seems like Harris and V are losing about 90% of these exchanges. Has there even been an objection (except for really obvious ones like "JH: He sounded like he had gotten caught.") that was overruled?
Let's see, now ... Internet blogs run by certifiable nut-jobs like Ted Kaldis good, blogs run by others, bad. Er, blogs aren't supposed to be read by jurors, you unprintable idiot! What happens in cyberspace is irrelevant, and Judge Pastor knows that. Just piss off the judge for no reason at all, Harris! Good move.
Sprocket: Patty and the woman with black hair continue to talk. Brown quickly comes back inside the courtroom. His shirt is unbuttoned and he doesn't have his tie on.
PH: A character assissination! He (the witness) was specifically referring to an internet blabber interview that he read about, where he said the child would be 22 years old!
Harris is really upset. It's obvious in his facial expressions and his tone of voice that this information is now before the jury.
PH: I don't know how I'm even going to address it! [...] And that somehow that clears it because when he called the defendant during a phone call, where Mr. Brown thought he was being recorded, Mr. Brown stated he didn't have a child. [...] AND NOW I HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANOTHER CHILD, that doesn't actually exist!!!!!
Harris talks about that Mr. Hum knew that this was not about the pregnancy with the other woman. THIS WAS A THIRD CHILD!
PH: Now this statement that Patty supposedly said abou that she's glad that Lauren is dead!
Harris is quite upset.
JP: Mrs. Brown! You [m]ake one other facial expression or shake your head and you're out!
Harris argues on.
PH: But this witness has acutally said in writing and siad that, and he gets involved with this Internet nut; [...] And that doesn't involve our current blogger here.
Sprocket: (Harris turns around and gestures back at me. When he does that, I'm going, oh no! I'm cringing inside. The last thing I want is to be dragged into another case. I had my fill of drama and harassment from Phil Spector and his wife. I try to sink a little lower in my seat.)Friday was not a good day for Team Cam, and that is before Jane Doe showed up. Harris has lost the judge and more importantly, one of the jurors. Those witnesses' testimony is going to be received in any murder trial in the country, and Hum is doing a spectacular job of painting Cam as a Ted Kaldis-class cad. The testimony is all legally relevant, and grounds for the California equivalent of exclusion under Rule 403 are thin at best.
PH: I don't know hhow I can combat this! It's getting out of control. He's (Hum) going to put on anyone that's ever said anything bad about Mr. Brown! This is just character assissination! I don't think it's relevant. It's gone way beyond the evidence.
Hum argues and defends his witness.
CH: All of this evidence is very relevant, because of the defendant's attitude and hatred of Ms. Key-Marer.
Hum continues. I believe he's restating all his arguments he just presented at the sidebar. Unfortunately, my next note is not clear as to who said it.
I'm waiting for the "baby-killin' brudder-in-law" exception to "don't get into a fight with the judge" (you know there is one; it wouldn't be Ted without it).
From what I'm seeing, Judge Pastor is doing a good job with this case. Hum has definitely got game, and Harris doesn't seem to be up to the challenge. I really didn't want to see a blow-up like that.
CI: At some point this entire charade will make sense. I can't believe that as things move along you haven't picked up on it already.
What "charade?" The government is attempting to convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which they have a legal right and moral obligation to do. The cops did what cops normally do, which is an investigation worthy of the Keystone Kops. As Dr. Lee put it, half of murder cases are lost at the crime scene.
Whether there will be a conviction here is unclear, even though I lean toward acquittal at this point. You don't know what a jury will do. There's a reason why Geragos and Harris have gone to some fairly extensive steps to gain marginal advantages: Cam is not "stone-cold innocent." Their procedural playbook is the best clue as to the relative strength of their case.
Ken: Stunts like Sarah's ambush of Cam at LAX leave you to appreciate just how vulnerable we all our to abuses of public office. You're damned if you play along, and you're damned if you put up a fight.
CI: And you don't know the half of it.
I know it from my own experience. Imagine being given the "choice" of having to submit to a psychological examination by someone who earns a lucrative stream of referrals from ruling in the way that the Bar wants (and even having to pay for it out of your own pocket -- the plot of Kangaroo Jack) or refusing on due process grounds with the full knowledge that the Bar will use it against you. Public officials need to be held personally accountable for their actions, with severe consequences for criminal actions. That is my battle.
Ken: even if your speculation about Cam's motivation for marrying Patty were true to any degree
Patty [the rest of us wouldn't have an emphatic opinion]: It is not!
What part of this do you not understand? What you or I think is immaterial here; it is what the jury thinks. Why a woman with the virtues of Cindi would want to spend her life with a guy like me is not altogether obvious, but I'm glad that she did. (Maybe she was impressed by the depth of my character.) That having been said, there is something to be said for taking an obvious bullet away from the jury. They are not going to know Patty Kaldis Brown (not knowing Theodore A. Kaldis is unquestionably a blessing, which is why he isn't being used as a character witness). They're likely to look at the surface ... and if they perceive you as Norbert's wife, it is going to have an impact on their deliberations.
A courtroom is a game of poker. Many trial lawyers take acting lessons, and actually act in local plays, because they know that they are on a stage. The jury has to see that you expected all the bad things that come out -- and bad things will come out, or the case wouldn't have gone to trial in the first place -- and are undisturbed by them. Team Cam's reactions in the first trial had an impact on its outcome. Pat Harris doesn't want to see it again, which is why he yelled at you when you had the outburst.
I want to see you guys not get in Cam's way. That's why I made the suggestion right after the first trial that you upgrade your appearance. Accuse me of being crass if you must; I won't lose sleep over it. But this man is fighting for the rest of his life here, and if you care about him, you have to give him every advantage you can.
End of sermon.
Ken - even if your speculation about Cam's motivation for marrying Patty were true to any degreeIt is not!
At some point this entire charade will make sense. I can't believe that as things move along you haven't picked up on it already.
Stunts like Sarah's ambush of Cam at LAX leave you to appreciate just how vulnerable we all our to abuses of public office. You're damned if you play along, and you're damned if you put up a fight.And you don't know the half of it.
Ken
Acquaintance: Ken - even if your speculation about Cam's motivation for marrying Patty were true to any degree, that would only make Patty another victim.
I concur.
Acquaintance: I'd be surprised if the prosecution posed your theory to the jury.
If they did, I would be the most shocked person in the state. They would never say it openly; it is impolitic to do so. That having been said, there is nothing that would stop the jury from getting there on their own -- and therein lies the danger. Juries don't have to account for their decisions, and no record is kept.
Acquaintance: I wouldn't be surprised if your theory is just meant as another provocation to Ted. Even if Ted deserves it, I can't see how Patty does.
Patty doesn't deserve any of this. The horse may be out of the barn, or so to speak; I was trying to warn her about this before, and it looks as if this is where they are going. It's all about winning -- even though at least for the State, it is supposed to be about doing justice.
Stunts like Sarah's ambush of Cam at LAX leave you to appreciate just how vulnerable we all our to abuses of public office. You're damned if you play along, and you're damned if you put up a fight.
Ken - even if your speculation about Cam's motivation for marrying Patty were true to any degree, that would only make Patty another victim. I'd be surprised if the prosecution posed your theory to the jury. I wouldn't be surprised if your theory is just meant as another provocation to Ted. Even if Ted deserves it, I can't see how Patty does.
I'm going to say something here just as an aside in response to something Sprocket said. What has been lost here is the fact that the LE were attempting in all ways possible to circumvent the fact that Cam had an attorney and the attorney had made it clear that Cam was not to be approached by LE. So what did they do? They deploy Sarah as an agent. What strikes me is that they would use a grieving woman in that manner, knowing full well that Cam was under instructions by his attorney to speak to NO ONE! I also feel very sorry for Sarah because she was sent to confront Cam so LE could set him up. Dirty tricks like this are a service to no one.
Sprocket: Jane Doe and the defendant were girlfriend and boyfriend. She became pregnant. They discussed abortion. They discussed the issue and it was a mutual agreement to have the abortion, and that there were incidents. She wanted to date others and he became jealous. He broke into her apartment. He ransacked the apartment.These are not good facts, assuming they got in. Don't know how that "fizzles," Ted.
JP: Year?
The time frame is mid to late 1980's, not 100% certain. There was a car ramming incident. Hum states it goes to "common plan and scheme."
Harris states that he thought Hum was not going to bring in activities that led to the arrest.
The car ramming incident was July 4th, 1986. They dated for about 1/2 a year. Hum wanted to bring in the fact that it was reported to the police.
PH: Sorry, that was Mr. Hum's impression but that was not the impression (I had). I did not "not object." I believe I said, "Bring it up before the appropriate time."
I believe Hum states that Jane Doe will be later in the morning or later in the afternoon. Judge Pastor tells counsel to meet at 8:30 am to discuss this. Hum states that the defendant admitted to her he did it (break in, ram her car) because his parents were the ones that paid for the damage to her car.
Ken: I can't wait for the procession of Baywatch Babes who will testify to Cam's anger management deficit.
Ted: Most of them have already testified.
And they were all hotties? Not good for Cam, especially if Patty doesn't measure up.
Acquaintance: Ken, I understand at least some of your frustration with Ted, but insulting Patty doesn't reflect well on you. I posted a bit about the 1986 incident at the other place.
Unfortunately, Patty's appearance will be an issue in this case -- albeit sub rosa -- and you made it more of one in your post on the other blog:
Jane Doe is a charming and beautiful woman (at least she was about a year ago when I last saw her), if not as charming and beautiful as Sarah was when we met in 1996.The jury is going to sense a pattern here: Cam was able to land a steady procession of border-line starlets younger than he was, but then, he married a woman substantially older than him who has been described to me as "large," "slovenly," and "looking like his mother," who just happened to have a good-paying job and decent exchequer. Patty reportedly wanted to move to NoCal and have a family (how that was going to happen was not altogether clear), whereas Cam is a confirmed surfer-dude. Those facts alone will create a presumption in the minds of the jurors that he married Patty for her money. To make matters worse, Patty keeps a voodoo kit beneath their bed, suggesting that she has designs on Lauren. Cam can't live with her (or at least, her plans), and can't live without her (due to the crushing child support burden). Getting rid of Lauren in an "accident" solves his problem.
This is the card the prosecution is playing. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
I suggested from the close of the last trial that Patty do whatever she could to take that angle away from them. Upgrading her appearance would have helped Cam immensely, as it would take that implicit insinuation away.
Ken Smith wrote:
I can't wait for the procession of Baywatch Babes who will testify to Cam's anger management deficit.Most of them have already testified.
Insults do not reflect well on anyone.
OK, knock it off.
Ken, I understand at least some of your frustration with Ted, but insulting Patty doesn't reflect well on you. I posted a bit about the 1986 incident at the other place.
Ted: In any event, the 1986 incident has already been testified about, and turned out to be a fizzle.
Through Ted's eyes, which are about as trustworthy as Pravda used to be in the old Soviet Union. Acquaintance, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the particulars of the 1986 incident; I might know of it by the substance, but I'm not certain what you are referring to.
I can't wait for the procession of Baywatch Babes who will testify to Cam's anger management deficit. One wag wrote me saying that the mere sight of Patty made Cam want to stay in his cell like a groundhog; I haven't seen her and cannot comment authoritatively, but this ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ran...r57/
TED_AUS.jpg ) with shoulder-length dishwater-grey hair would frighten any sane creature -- unless that creature was a walrus.
Glad that CI is rational enough to not include Sprocket as a conspirator.
I use the tag "The Acquaintance" because Cam and I have a mutual friend (for simplicity's sake, let's call that friend "M" for "mutual"). M has known Cam for over 25 years. IIRC I first met Cam over 20 years ago. M, as a long-time friend of Cam's, has believed Cam to be innocent of the most serious charges. M rarely thinks ill of others, let alone speaking ill of them. Ted's conduct has achieved the rather difficult objective of earning M's anger and has even made M start to consider the possibility of Cam having an active role in Lauren's death.
Ted - you would benefit from learning how to converse with people in ways that are less antagonistic. That will probably be very difficult, especially as the testimony about the 1986 incident will be so emotionally overheated.
Sprocket is doing an excellent job. You can see the direction she wants to lean in her interpretations, but that's okay. When left to speculate, she doesn't always hit the nail on the head, but she certainly gives enough detail and information that it will all make sense in the end.
I've got to give her a thumbs up. I hope she finds the time to continue her coverage. Wishing the kitty well.
If you had proof three years ago, why didn't you file a motion for recusal?We did not know three years ago, nor two years ago.
Ken: Unless Judge Arnold would stand to receive some tangible benefit as a result of Cam's conviction
anony: Bingo
If you had proof three years ago, why didn't you file a motion for recusal? You two have accused everyone this side of Vladimir Putin of having skin in the game and invariably, without foundation. If you had something worth going for, Geragos would have gone for it.
Unless Judge Arnold would stand to receive some tangible benefit as a result of Cam's convictionBingo
anony: Cam's case landed in the Torrance court because at a hearing on 1/10/05, when Mark Geragos was Cam's attorney, Hum requested it be moved to Torrance, to Judge Arnold. The judge assigning the case was reluctant to do so because the LA County rules require trials that last longer than three weeks to be heard Downtown; and Mark Geragos objected vigorously. ...
Mark Geragos did challenge Judge Arnold. He was told that if he did not accept him they would bring this other judge (his name escapes me right now) back to criminal cases and that judge would hear the case. This other judge's rulings were so bad that he was no longer allowed to do criminal cases. He had been moved to civil court, and not by choice. Yet, this other judge was the only other choice Mark Geragos had if he continued with his peremptory challenge to Judge Arnold. He was given the choice of worse or worser.
If the judge had been barred from hearing criminal cases, there were remedies; under C.C.P. 170.3, recusal of the substitute judge would seem like a no-brainer. If that judge was deemed unfit to hear criminal cases for good cause, a decision to assign him to a murder case would be overturned in a heartbeat in the CoA. Geragos had enough "star power" to get something like that noticed.
Bottom line, Geragos allowed himself to get punk'd.
anony: Once he got the case Judge Arnold was committed to hearing it.
Which is precisely what he is supposed to do. Once a case is assigned to a judge, he has a duty to hear it, unless there are compelling reasons why he should be recused.
anony: He would not let it go even though there were several valid reasons for a change of venue. In spite of these issues Judge Arnold rejected all bids for a change of venue.
And the appeal of this decision was heard in which court?
Once again, it helps to know the law. Just because an attorney asks for a change of venue does not mean that he is entitled to it. "Reasons for changes of venue include pretrial publicity, bias, political atmosphere, and any other circumstance that the parties believe would prevent them from obtaining a fair trial in the county in which the case was originally filed." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/refe...ts/
chgofven.pdf. A case involving the murder trial of a nobody stevedore is not going to be politically charged in Los Angeles, given that you pretty much have to gun down a busload of nuns for it to be carried on the nightly news. The pretrial publicity threshold is relatively high, and disqualifying bias would be extremely difficult to prove. Unless there is dispositive evidence that I don't know about, I would have to say that Judge Arnold made a legally correct call; that Geragos didn't appeal is compelling evidence that it was correct.
A criminal case is about the last place where you'll see shenanigans supported upstairs, because judges of the Court of Appeals really don't have a dog in the hunt. Tax cases are usually clean, because no one in the government gives a rip. This is pretty close.
anony: One problem was that Hum had created a media blitz in the South Bay and there was considerable prejudice against Cam in the jury pool. Judge Arnold disregarded the evidence of an abundance of negative publicity against Cam, and he flat-out denied the motion for a change of venue on those grounds.
I don't think Geragos laid a proper foundation for it. As a general rule, you need to show extensive coverage as a threshold; one article announcing an indictment doesn't cut it, and you two have a nasty habit of exaggerating. Successful challenges are usually supported by a change of venue survey, establishing community attitudes as measured by scientific polling. Second, courts are advised to try to seat an impartial jury before indulging a request for change of venue, as the Administrative Office of the Courts counsels:
Rule 4.151(b) of the California Rules of Court and an accompanying advisory committee comment recommend that the court attempt to impanel a fair and impartial jury before ordering a change of venue, unless there is clear evidence of a reasonable likelihood that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county. Penal Code section 1036.7 states that the court, after ordering a change of venue, should consider whether bringing in a jury from another county, rather than transferring the case, would be in the interest of the administration of justice—including the convenience of the jurors—under rule 4.153(1) of the California Rules of Court.Id.
Finally, I note for the record that Geragos did not renew his request for a change of venue when he got the judge he was shopping for. If anything, the pre-trial publicity situation is even worse, in light of John and Ken's efforts. Obviously, the first motion was a cold-ass loser, much like the Daubert/Frye motion.
anony: Another problem was that one of the defense experts, Dr. Janice Ophoven, had scheduling conflicts with other cases. Judge Arnold dealt with that problem by ordering Dr. Ophoven to give his case a priority and reschedule her other cases.
This is not uncommon. Courts are usually pretty good at rescheduling for conflicts, but judges are often insistent that their case be heard first.
anony: The third problem was duration of this case was too long for the Torrance Court. The day before jury selection was to begin Judge Arnold stated on the court record that jury selection would last one week. He went on to say the prosecution and defense would take a total of 3 to 4 weeks for both to make their arguments. This, Judge Arnold stated to the record, put the duration of the trial (4 – 5 weeks total) within acceptable limits to allow it to be heard in Torrance, even if it went beyond the 3 week rule. The next day Judge Arnold said on the record that he expected jury selection alone to last three weeks (in other words Judge Arnold contradicted what he said to the court record on the previous day). Clearly Judge Arnold knew the case would be longer then the four to five weeks he asserted on the court record, but he said what he had to, so he could justify keeping the case in Torrance. Cam's trial ultimately lasted eleven weeks.
And the harm is? Is there some magic fairy dust they use downtown to make it possible for them to hear cases of longer duration? This appears to be an arbitrary administrative rule, without the force of law. If they chose to ignore it, they had more than sufficient legal authority to do so.
As for judges lying, welcome to the 21st Century.
I'm not seeing any serious fouls here. Everything that happened either should have happened, or could have been remedied if Geragos had been more diligent in protecting his client's interests.
anony: I am actually repeating what Mark Geragos stated in the court record.
A defense attorney's representation of what "the law" is, spoken through the muffled megaphone of partisan advocacy, is hardly dispositive.
anony: Actually, a compelling case can be made that Judge Arnold's interest in this case was personal.
That depends on what the meaning of the word "personal" is. Certain "personal" interests are not valid grounds for recusal (e.g., a judge's deeply-held conviction that abortion is murder). Unless Judge Arnold would stand to receive some tangible benefit as a result of Cam's conviction, there is no personal interest that the law recognizes. For instance, ex-Chief Judge Nottingham hated employment law cases, but that deep-seated animus was not a ground for recusal.
As for Judge Arnold's observations that certain laws did not apply to the instances in question, I would have to know what the laws at issue were, and the exact context in which those remarks were made. What you think you understand the law to be as a layman may not be what it isI am actually repeating what Mark Geragos stated in the court record. I would not have known otherwise.
and frankly, when a judge becomes biased as the result of information he becomes privy to in a trial, it is not a ground for recusal under federal law. What you complained about is, for the most part, a manifestation of the judge's lawful discretion in managing trials before him.Actually, a compelling case can be made that Judge Arnold's interest in this case was personal.
Speaking of three weeks for jury selection, something else that caught my attention is the fact that Judge Arnold allowed the "thank and excuse" process to go on for three weeks and did not limit the number of jurors that were excused. In this way Hum stacked the jury with housewives who were taken by his histrionics and emotional appeal that was the major impetus of his case. As a result these jurors disregarded the discrepancies and inconsistencies in his argument. Judge Pastor on the other hand limited the number of excuses and the process took only a day and a half. Another difference is Hum has not even attempted the histrionics and emotional appeal that dominated his case the last time around.
California permits one peremptory challenge to a judge in a criminal case, but it must be made on a timely basis. Clearly, the PD who was representing Cam did not believe that Judge Arnold was unfairly biasedWrong, this case should have never been heard in Torrance, and Judge Arnold wasn't the judge when the PD had the case. According to LA County court rules this case should have been heard at the Criminal Court in Downtown LA, where it is now being heard. (This is revealed by the case number. Cam's case number has the prefix "BA"– the prefix for cases heard Downtown. Cases heard in Torrance are prefixed with "YA".)
Cam's case landed in the Torrance court because at a hearing on 1/10/05, when Mark Geragos was Cam's attorney, Hum requested it be moved to Torrance, to Judge Arnold. The judge assigning the case was reluctant to do so because the LA County rules require trials that last longer than three weeks to be heard Downtown; and Mark Geragos objected vigorously. But, Hum was determined and he called Judge Arnold on his cell phone from in the courtroom during the hearing. Judge Arnold assured the assignment judge that the Torrance Court calendar could accommodate Cam's trial. (Judge Arnold happened to be available to take the call, and in fact, seemed to be expecting it, even though he should have been in court himself. This suggests a prearranged plan to bring the case to Torrance). In the end, Judge Arnold's assurance turned out to be a misrepresentation because cases that belonged in Torrance were sent Downtown, and others were delayed for several days before ultimately being reassigned. All this resulted from Cam's case clogging up the Torrance calendar.
Once he got the case Judge Arnold was committed to hearing it. He would not let it go even though there were several valid reasons for a change of venue. In spite of these issues Judge Arnold rejected all bids for a change of venue.
One problem was that Hum had created a media blitz in the South Bay and there was considerable prejudice against Cam in the jury pool. Judge Arnold disregarded the evidence of an abundance of negative publicity against Cam, and he flat-out denied the motion for a change of venue on those grounds.
Another problem was that one of the defense experts, Dr. Janice Ophoven, had scheduling conflicts with other cases. Judge Arnold dealt with that problem by ordering Dr. Ophoven to give his case a priority and reschedule her other cases. The way this was done may be of interest as well. On the day the motion for a change of venue was scheduled Judge Arnold continued hearing the motion until the following week. Then, as the defense attorney (Lara) was leaving the court (she was already in her car driving away) Judge Arnold called her on her cell phone and ordered her to return to court because he had decided to hear the motion on that day after all. By doing that he effectively buried the court record by hearing the motion in a second session on the same day that he re-scheduled the hearing. This begs the question, was he trying to hide something by burying the court record.
The third problem was duration of this case was too long for the Torrance Court. The day before jury selection was to begin Judge Arnold stated on the court record that jury selection would last one week. He went on to say the prosecution and defense would take a total of 3 to 4 weeks for both to make their arguments. This, Judge Arnold stated to the record, put the duration of the trial (4 – 5 weeks total) within acceptable limits to allow it to be heard in Torrance, even if it went beyond the 3 week rule. The next day Judge Arnold said on the record that he expected jury selection alone to last three weeks (in other words Judge Arnold contradicted what he said to the court record on the previous day). Clearly Judge Arnold knew the case would be longer then the four to five weeks he asserted on the court record, but he said what he had to, so he could justify keeping the case in Torrance. Cam's trial ultimately lasted eleven weeks.
Mark Geragos did challenge Judge Arnold. He was told that if he did not accept him they would bring this other judge (his name escapes me right now) back to criminal cases and that judge would hear the case. This other judge's rulings were so bad that he was no longer allowed to do criminal cases. He had been moved to civil court, and not by choice. Yet, this other judge was the only other choice Mark Geragos had if he continued with his peremptory challenge to Judge Arnold. He was given the choice of worse or worser.
CI: I'd like to see this place cleaned up. Ken, you have to be one of the most disgusting people I've ever seen posting anywhere. In fact, you win that distinction.
But when Ted takes a dump, it has the distinctive odor of rose petals? Funny how that happens....
I don't enjoy flame wars, but the Fat Fuck never lets it go. Curb your walrus, and we'll all get along just fine.
anony: There was no guarantee that would not happen this time, as well. It wasn’t until the judge stated that jury selection would begin, as opposed to giving another reason for yet another delay, that there was certainty the trial would finally take place. That happened only a few weeks ago. So, Ted did not know when the trial was going to start, until it was actually starting.
Ted gave other reasons ... but of course, if Ted tells you that the sky is blue, you would be wise to get a second opinion. :-(
anony: Is getting out of the courtroom of a judge who was committed to railroading Cam the same thing as judge shopping? Judge Arnold was tag-teaming Cam with Craig Hum. He stated on numerous occasions that he felt a variety of laws do not apply to this case, and he was even willing to over look a Bill of Rights right. All this is documented by the trial transcript. Who would not want out of such a biased court?
Why is it that, for every single Kaldis Rule™, there is always a baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception?
In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), the Supreme Court made the following salient observations:
[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has "a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest" in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that "[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would cer tainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, cor rupt his integrity." …Caperton, slip op. at 6, 16 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitu tional level. …
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Consti tution requires recusal.
It is difficult to conceive of any fact situation any more extraordinary or extreme than a judge deciding an appeal in a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal itself is required by statute to be heard by another court: the judicially noticeable facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055).
Not only does your brain-dead brother not object to this patent violation of due process, but he actually endorses it. So, let's put away the ridiculous notion that you are entitled to have your case heard by a fair and independent tribunal. That right exists only on paper, and is always subject to the axiom that some animals are more equal than others. If the powers that be want to run over a piece of roadkill like Cam, they are entitled to do so -- at least, according to your brother. As for "overlooking" the Bill of Rights, I am at a loss to identify what provisions scrawled on that piece of toilet paper are still in effect.
California permits one peremptory challenge to a judge in a criminal case, but it must be made on a timely basis. Clearly, the PD who was representing Cam did not believe that Judge Arnold was unfairly biased and frankly, when a judge becomes biased as the result of information he becomes privy to in a trial, it is not a ground for recusal under federal law. What you complained about is, for the most part, a manifestation of the judge's lawful discretion in managing trials before him.
As for Judge Arnold's observations that certain laws did not apply to the instances in question, I would have to know what the laws at issue were, and the exact context in which those remarks were made. What you think you understand the law to be as a layman may not be what it is -- and in Ted's case, it is almost certain to not be what it is. For all I know, the first trial was fair enough to meet constitutional minima, but that having been said, defendants would always want to have their cases heard by bleeding-heart liberal outed gay men who naturally distrust the police, as opposed to authority-loving fascist Republican Ted Kaldis types. Sure, you went judge-shopping, even if the price was severe (two years in the slammer).
I'd like to see this place cleaned up. Ken, you have to be one of the most disgusting people I've ever seen posting anywhere. In fact, you win that distinction.
Ted (or that rest of the family, or Pat Harris) did not know when the trial was going to start. Cam was being promised since May 2008 that his trial would go next, and then, at the last minute some reason was given for the trial to be delayed - again. Then Cam was given the choice to waive his right to a speedy trial, or go back to Judge Arnold’s kangaroo court. In other words he was given the choice between a speedy trial or a fair trial. Really that was no choice at all.Ken, you are invited to fly out and observe for a day or two, and see for yourself.LOL! When it might have actually mattered, Ted wouldn't even tell me when the trial was about to start. Don't have any SoCal trips on the agenda in the near future.
There was no guarantee that would not happen this time, as well. It wasn’t until the judge stated that jury selection would begin, as opposed to giving another reason for yet another delay, that there was certainty the trial would finally take place. That happened only a few weeks ago. So, Ted did not know when the trial was going to start, until it was actually starting.
Harris knows it, which is why he went judge-shopping.Is getting out of the courtroom of a judge who was committed to railroading Cam the same thing as judge shopping? Judge Arnold was tag-teaming Cam with Craig Hum. He stated on numerous occasions that he felt a variety of laws do not apply to this case, and he was even willing to over look a Bill of Rights right. All this is documented by the trial transcript. Who would not want out of such a biased court?
Ted: Ken, please tone down the ad hom a notch. I used to be a [computer] flamer (and if you don't know what that is, look it up). (Hint: it has NOTHING to do with a homosexual lifestyle.) The first rule in the world of flamers is that, if you're gonna flame others, you gotta be able to take it when others flame you. But obviously, you're not up to it. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. No wonder you never post to USENET any more. You can't stand the heat.
You're the one who always starts the "flame wars," Ted. We can't have an intelligent discussion without you reaching for your trusty rattle -- mostly, because even you know that you lose every time.
As for my disappearance from USENET, it was a function of my upgrading to a new computer; the software on the new rig was too cumbersome, and it wasn't worth the brain damage to get something that worked. Unlike you, I am not so emotionally unstable that I find "flame wars" a desirable pastime, though I will defend myself when attacked.
Ted: Ken, please tone down the ad hom a notch. I used to be a ... flamer
You've always been closeted, from what I understand. When that guy from the gay bookstore in L.A. ID'd you as a customer, I nearly fell onto the floor with laughter.
Ken: Which government would you prefer to live under?
Ted: One in which those who would be "greatest" among us become the servants of all -- as our Lord commanded us.
IOW, a benevolent dictator. That wasn't one of the options given to you.
Ted: Otherwise, the rule of "law" is nothing more than an unachievable fantasy, and we will simply do the bidding of men more powerful than us.
You do remember your Orwell, don't you? The Party kept its leaders in line because everybody was accountable -- even O'Brien. That same principle worked in England for several hundred years; no man was above the law; everyone had the right to hold even the King accountable for his actions. Unlike Continental law of the time, where princes could not be held liable for even willful abuses of the rights of their subjects, King Charles I of the House of Stuart was executed for his crimes.
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen." That is the sum and substance of your argument, Ted.
Ken, please tone down the ad hom a notch. I used to be a [computer] flamer (and if you don't know what that is, look it up). (Hint: it has NOTHING to do with a homosexual lifestyle.) The first rule in the world of flamers is that, if you're gonna flame others, you gotta be able to take it when others flame you. But obviously, you're not up to it. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. No wonder you never post to USENET any more. You can't stand the heat.
To become a lawyer, one must not only have a sufficient knowledge of the law, but also have a scruples deficit sufficient to perform sex acts on judges when demanded. Being GREEK, Mark Geragos obviously had no problem with the latter.Mistaken again.
Denise Nix doesn't have a dog in the hunt, and her reports have been corroborated on multiple occasions.You are mistaken. She does have an interest in this case, but I don't want to make that the focus here. Regarding corroboration on multiple occasions the only one that corroborated her was Shannon Farren; and that was done by the two sitting down together and getting their stories straight, usually after one them sat down with Hum’s paralegal, or Hum himself and took notes – as opposed to taking notes during the trial. What does not corroborate their accounts is the trial transcripts. We will get to that, at this point I believe, sooner rather than later.
Unknown: Bias is apparent when someone supports one side of the argument to the exclusion of all else.
anony: Can anybody say Denise Nix and the Daily Breeze.
No, but I can say Jabba the Hutt's stunt double.
anony: Lara, on the other hand, is sophisticated and professional.
You forgot to add, "Because she is on our team." Funny how that works with Team Cam.
Ken: Judging by her mug shot on the G&G website, Lara Y. is downright ordinary.
anony: That picture doesn't do her justice - at all!
And whose fault is that? She isn't as repulsive as your brother Jabba the Hutt, and most guys wouldn't throw her out of bed for eating crackers, but she isn't so attractive that she is going to hold the attention of most of the jurors because of her attractiveness.
CI: No news media serves the best interests of beautiful little Lauren by trying to discount the reality that her father loved her very much (if that is what the evidence shows, and I believe it does!).
What you believe and what the truth is may be two very different things. The Peterson family stood by Scott.
At best -- and it doesn't happen nearly often enough! -- the media reports what it perceives, as opposed what you want it to report. Denise Nix doesn't have a dog in the hunt, and her reports have been corroborated on multiple occasions. She doesn't have much time to devote to Cam's case because there are other juicy stories on offer, and she already attended the first trial.
CI: In accordance with the best interests of Cam Brown and in the interest of justice, we are mute. All you have is Sprocket right now. Let's all hope she does an awesome job and is able to be there often enough to convey to you how things are going. If not, you will just have to wait. In the meantime, remember that this is Hum's case in chief. Pat Harris hasn't had his day in court yet.
Did I ever suggest otherwise?
You guys have to get it through your heads that these are Craig Hum's innings, and he will score some runs. There appears to be a wealth of credible evidence suggesting that Cam is irresponsible, stupid, or both, and that he has a sometimes-uncontrolled temper, and that does have an impact on this trial. There's enough here for a jury to convict and even Harris knows it, which is why he went judge-shopping.
The jury will hear what the jury will hear. They won't hear Ted's insane drivel about how Craig Hum overpaid for an expert because Ted lied; the defense actually paid more for theirs. And no, they won't hear about Omar Saad's sex life, any more than they are likely to hear about Ted's patronage of gay bars.
Common sense says that Cam is guilty. Virtually all situations like these happen in the context of a stormy relationship between the parents; for every Natalie Yeargen, there are dozens if not hundreds of incidents like the recent ones in Melbourne and Louisiana where parents threw their kids to their deaths. But we don't convict on common sense; we require the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ted: I won't bother getting into specifics, but "The Acquaintance" tips his/her hand with his/her incorrect recount of what has gone on in the courtroom.
"The Acquaintance's" account reads like wishful thinking by Craig Hum.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know. Everybody's wrong but you. Your shit never stinks. We've heard it all before, Ted.
You are a proven sociopath who has a freakin' pack of dogs in this hunt. You have never been particularly astute when it comes to understanding the law or courtroom procedure. What you "see" is, therefore, quite unlikely to be accurate or accurately related.
Sprocket is a veteran trial blogger, who has demonstrated that she understands many of the nuances of what goes on in the hurly-burly of the courtroom. Unlike you, she has a life to attend to, and watching this trial is just a hobby (back in colonial days, townspeople actually went to trials for entertainment). But Sprocket is independent, and she is HONEST -- two things I could NEVER say about you, Ted.
Most people understand that you are a raging asshole, and not to be taken seriously.
Ted: By the way, I'm an engineer, not a repairman. And I work in implementation and deployment of innovative solutions
You're obviously not the brains of the outfit.
CI: Speaking of histrionics, what's this about Ted sleeping through the trial? The man starts to nod off one time and suddenly you make a mountain out of a molehill.
Ted's been brain-dead ever since he "died." Logic? Reason? They are undiscovered countries to him.
CI: That's just pathetic. Someone comes in here and posts a stupid synopsis about people dressing in shorts, etc, and you eat it up with a friggen ladle!
Who did that? I never said that I thought that "Missy" was anything more than a drive-by. That having been said, there is more than sufficient evidence that Team Cam has behaved poorly in the courtroom on more than one occasion.
CI: Did it happen? Noooo. But does that matter? Noooooo. As for Patty, even Sprocket acknowledges that she is silently paying attention and taking notes. Your comments add nothing more than hateful and spiteful nonsense.
But when the fat fuck sings, you never have a cross word on offer. Funny how that happens.
Ted: Because you OBVIOUSLY don't know how to become a lawyer.
To become a lawyer, one must not only have a sufficient knowledge of the law, but also have a scruples deficit sufficient to perform sex acts on judges when demanded. Being GREEK, Mark Geragos obviously had no problem with the latter.
The Greeks. The people who gave us NAMBLA. Those greaseballs are obsessed with anal sex -- it's called "Greek sex" for a reason. They even name their kids Theodor Anus.
One malicious ad hominem deserves another.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:I'm not really bothering to post the goings on of the trial to any great extent, nor really to correct much of the erroneous information posted here (or even elsewhere). If Ken Smith is in the dark about what's really going on, well, tough noogies. That's not my concern."The Acquaintance" knows basically about as much about this trial as Ken Smith does. He/she seems to have formed his/her opinion on the basis of what has been posted about this trial on the internet, and has been printed in the press.Which is infinitely more reliable than the prattlings of a glorified telephone repairman
By the way, I'm an engineer, not a repairman. And I work in implementation and deployment of innovative solutions, not repair.
Ted: "The Acquaintance" knows basically about as much about this trial as Ken Smith does. He/she seems to have formed his/her opinion on the basis of what has been posted about this trial on the internet, and has been printed in the press.
Which is infinitely more reliable than the prattlings of a glorified telephone repairman who suffers from acid flashbacks, is a proven sociopath, and who has an enormous personal interest in the outcome of the case.
Better to have reliable information.
Ted: From my perspective
That's the problem. Whether it is your recurring acid flashbacks, the synapses you have pickled, or your personal bias (your admitted need to support your sister, and if Cam doesn't gain an acquittal, your Maybach dreams are gone), you can't judge the proceedings objectively.
Plus, anyone who believes what you believe about your psychotic ancient tribal sky-daddy is stark-raving crazy to begin with.
Ted: But for even there to be a rule of "law", the law must NECESSARILY be based upon some transcendent moral standard -- one which is IMMUTABLE -- such as the Ten Commandments. Otherwise, the "law" is nothing more than the rule of men, under which some men are "more equal" than others.
Your ignorance is unassailable and your stupidity, eternal. Ignoring the inconvenient fact that there are three different versions of this "immutable" standard in the Pentateuch, it can hardly be called a law code. Three of the "Big Five" in Deuteronomy are common to all civil societies; "Thou shalt not omit adultery" is uniquely Christian, and the part about covetousness has been overruled by crass capitalism.
The problem with all "divine" laws is that they are delivered by men, with no objective evidence that they came from the creator of the Universe. Why not pick Shari'a? The prospect of ravishing a nine-year-old virgin and then divorcing her with nine words would warm any pedophile's heart. Your god is every bit as weird, with a bizarre fixation on blood.
Any system built on the rule of law -- as opposed to the rule of men -- necessarily makes all men equal before the law. England's common law system is far superior to our own, in the sense that any citizen can hold a public official accountable for crimes s/he committed in office. The problem comes when public officials are above and beyond the law, cloistered behind an impenetrable wall of immunity.
Ken Smith wrote:
"anony" wrote:Emphasize "little". Because you OBVIOUSLY don't know how to become a lawyer. And you AIN'T one, and there seems to be little (if any) prospect of you ever becoming one.Otherwise, what do you know?A little something about the law.
From my perspective, "The Acquaintance" knows basically about as much about this trial as Ken Smith does. He/she seems to have formed his/her opinion on the basis of what has been posted about this trial on the internet, and has been printed in the press. Having sat in the courtroom and heard the testimony, my perceptions about the case that the prosecutor has constructed, the points that the defense attorney has scored, and the deficiencies exhibited by law enforcement officers on that day are VASTLY divergent from the picture painted by "The Acquaintance". I won't bother getting into specifics, but "The Acquaintance" tips his/her hand with his/her incorrect recount of what has gone on in the courtroom.
"The Acquaintance's" account reads like wishful thinking by Craig Hum.
I've said before that I believe the very best way to honor beautiful little Lauren is to allow her truth to be told. We can't accomplish that by discounting or manipulating to reflect one side or the other. Lauren is not best served to be remembered as a child whose father threw her off a cliff if that didn't happen! Lauren is not best served by deflecting the blow of how devastating this was for her mother. There is no question about that! We don't do anyone any favors by trying to manipulate the outcome out of spite or revenge, but rather to allow both sides to have their day in court. No news media serves the best interests of beautiful little Lauren by trying to discount the reality that her father loved her very much (if that is what the evidence shows, and I believe it does!). Denise Nix has not earned my respect, nor have John and Ken or Shannon Ferren. Lauren deserves nothing less than the full truth. If her father loved her and the events were because of a tragic and terrible accident, THAT is what we should remember when we think of Lauren. If you don't bother to hear both sides, how can you pretend to be a fair judge or give a fair account? All of those who scream loudly to try to prevent Cam's side from being known or heard do a disservice to Lauren. Shame on them.
Sprocket is doing just fine. She has her own life and schedule to deal with (to say nothing of the fact that she is caring for a very sick pet).Knowing that, then perhaps I've been too hard on her. I know what that's like; and it is no fun.
Sprocket, I hope your pet pulls through.
Plus, one thing I have to say in her favor, when she is there, she does a much better job than Denise Nix ever did, and unlike Sprocket, Nix is a paid reporter.
Acquaintance, you are very thoughtful and it is appreciated here. One would expect the prosecutor to present his case in the way he wants it to be seen by the jurors. Whether or not that holds up remains to be seen.
Take a deep breath and exhale slowly. Everyone will feel better.
Sprocket is doing just fine. She has her own life and schedule to deal with (to say nothing of the fact that she is caring for a very sick pet). She has some legitimate questions about things that she feels confused by. Depending on her schedule, she will find the answers in the courtroom. She has been relatively fair in her representation of those things she has seen happen. We can't fault her for the things she missed. Let's give her the opportunity to play this out. After all, she isn't getting paid and is under no obligation to do this at all.
Ken, you are right about Judge Pastor. He has a huge thumb and controls his courtroom. This trial is nothing compared to the previous one. It is lacking the histrionics and sense of drama which should not have been allowed the first time around. No, people are not anticipating what will be said because of the previous trial. This is a new jury being exposed to the very same case the first set of jurors should have been allowed to see. I credit the judge for his integrity.
Speaking of histrionics, what's this about Ted sleeping through the trial? The man starts to nod off one time and suddenly you make a mountain out of a molehill. That's just pathetic. Someone comes in here and posts a stupid synopsis about people dressing in shorts, etc, and you eat it up with a friggen ladle! Did it happen? Noooo. But does that matter? Noooooo. As for Patty, even Sprocket acknowledges that she is silently paying attention and taking notes. Your comments add nothing more than hateful and spiteful nonsense.
In accordance with the best interests of Cam Brown and in the interest of justice, we are mute. All you have is Sprocket right now. Let's all hope she does an awesome job and is able to be there often enough to convey to you how things are going. If not, you will just have to wait. In the meantime, remember that this is Hum's case in chief. Pat Harris hasn't had his day in court yet.
From what I understand, the defense has scored its points on the conduct of law enforcement officers and on the parking lot attendant. From all indications, the LEOs performance was severely wanting on November 8, 2000. That isn't necessarily going to help Cam.
The prosecution's narrative is based on chronology. They established a troubled relationship between Cam and Sarah, they introduced testimony (AFAIK not rebutted) of Cam exposing Lauren to danger and of Lauren being scared of Cam prior to November 8. They introduced testimony of the hike to the top of the point that contradicts Cam's testimony. They introduced testimony of Cam's highly unusual behavior after Lauren went over the edge. By the time they consider what happened after the LEOs arrived, most of the jury will have made a conclusion that doesn't favor Cam. It fits the story that sounds most likely.
The defense has not, AFAIK, presented a compelling exculpatory narrative. They've attacked a few points here and there, but not the central assertions of the prosecution. One compelling nearly exculpatory narrative occurs to me, but it is probably too late to introduce even if the defense were willing and the facts supported it. I would hope that counsel had at least explored iit. (Hint: it would be the most striking similarity between Cam and Bill Gates.) Even that narrative would probably leave Cam open to manslaughter/negligent homicide/whatever they're calling it this week, and the defense has resisted that charge so far.
Bias is apparent when someone supports one side of the argument to the exclusion of all else.Can anybody say Denise Nix and the Daily Breeze.
She may be now, but by your own admission, she wasn't his main squeeze when she first walked into the courtroom.And her very first reports were actually fair. But, that did not last very long. And coincidentally the timing of when she hooked up with Hum and she lost her impartially seem to correspond.
We had one woman in my class who was a former Penthouse Playmate. In a moot court competition, one male judge told her to tone down the sexuality, as it detracted from her presentation.Perhaps a former Penthouse Playmate exudes sexuality from her pores. Lara, on the other hand, is sophisticated and professional.
Judging by her mug shot on the G&G website, Lara Y. is downright ordinary.That picture doesn't do her justice - at all!
anony: Ken, you are invited to fly out and observe for a day or two, and see for yourself.
LOL! When it might have actually mattered, Ted wouldn't even tell me when the trial was about to start. Don't have any SoCal trips on the agenda in the near future.
anony: Otherwise, what do you know?
A little something about the law. All of that "trial tactics" stuff I waded through in law school. You two seem more than a little confused on what is relevant and/or admissible, and Ted has proven conclusively that stupid is forever. The jury will decide what it decides, and I still have faith in that part of the process. The crowd is an ersatz jury, and Sprocket appears to be a free agent. I'm placing faith in her reports because I don't have a trial transcript from which to work.
As far as I am concerned, my wife walks on water. (She does, but that is another discussion.) If things were any different from your perspective, I'd be concerned. You are not going to see this case with an objective eye, no matter how hard you try.
When I say that I really don't care how this turns out, I mean it. I doubt strenuously that I will ever meet any of you in person. All I want to see is that the system works in the way that it is designed, and what I've gathered from Sprocket's reports suggests that the defense is wanting. No one should lose their life (and that would be the result of a conviction) as a result of bad lawyering.
"anony" wrote:
Ken, you are invited to fly out and observe for a day or two, and see for yourself. Otherwise, what do you know?Squat. But alas, that's never stopped Ken from opening his pie-hole, out of which emerges a RIGHT LOAD OF BOLLOCKS!
Ken Smith wrote:
In a republic governed by the rule of law, all men are not only created equal, but are entitled to the protections of law.But for even there to be a rule of "law", the law must NECESSARILY be based upon some transcendent moral standard -- one which is IMMUTABLE -- such as the Ten Commandments. Otherwise, the "law" is nothing more than the rule of men, under which some men are "more equal" than others.
Which government would you prefer to live under?One in which those who would be "greatest" among us become the servants of all -- as our Lord commanded us. Otherwise, the rule of "law" is nothing more than an unachievable fantasy, and we will simply do the bidding of men more powerful than us.
Ken, you are invited to fly out and observe for a day or two, and see for yourself. Otherwise, what do you know?
Patty's in a terribly difficult situation and has my sympathy. I would never expect her to publicly say that she thinks her husband is guilty, or even to believe it.Or perhaps she has seen things that give her cause to believe with every fiber of her being that Cam is innocent. Nevertheless, she thanks you for your thoughtful words.
anony: You have to be present, and observe something before you can think much of it. For whatever reason, Sprocket seems to time her appearances to when Hum makes some mild points, and misses when those points are demolished.
Are there any Angelinos left who you two haven't accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself? Really, "anony," these conspiracy theories are wearing a trifle thin.
You have to understand that you see this case through a unique lens, and couldn't put away your bias if you tried.
Acquaintance: Patty's in a terribly difficult situation and has my sympathy. I would never expect her to publicly say that she thinks her husband is guilty, or even to believe it. I would hope, though, that some of the people in her life who have less of direct connection with Cam would give her better advice on how to cope. Conspiracy theories generally don't enhance a person's credibility.
There are legitimate conspiracies -- they are prosecuted all the time -- and then, there is the Birther nonsense. These clowns have been whining about everything -- they even accused the city fathers of RPV of being behind one of their conspiracies (that they were attempting to avoid a ruinous lawsuit), despite conclusive evidence to the contrary (Cam having filed suit and withdrawn it, plus the fact that the applicable statute of limitations had run, and evidence that RPV was in a Lloyd's-style insurance pool, and only had a few thou on the table). Trust me: this conspiracy nonsense never ends with these two.
anony: If that is truly Sprocket's observation, then she must be the one sleeping through the proceedings - that is when she is there. As for Lara's cross-examination, regardless of her delivery, she is making her points. What's more, Lara has a fantastic figure, gorgeous long black hair - perfectly coiffed, delicate features, with big brown eyes, and porcelain skin. Do you honestly believe a jury of ten men will be bored when she is standing at the podium, whether she is speaking or not?
We had one woman in my class who was a former Penthouse Playmate. In a moot court competition, one male judge told her to tone down the sexuality, as it detracted from her presentation.
Judging by her mug shot on the G&G website, Lara Y. is downright ordinary.
Ken: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?"
Ted: That's the way the world works, unfortunately. That was the genius of Orwell, that he could perceive it and express it in a way that all could understand. Who, in our system of governance, has more power than a judge? That's why you should avoid crossing them. Get your head screwed on, suing a judge is like pissing into the wind.
Every bit of Orwell's famous material was a denunciation of totalitarian socialism. In a totalitarian regime, some animals are more equal than others. In a republic governed by the rule of law, all men are not only created equal, but are entitled to the protections of law. Which government would you prefer to live under? Are you prepared to fight to retain that preference? And if not, why not? Isn't liberty worth fighting for?
Gerry Spence had something to say about assholes like you, Ted:
In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.Spence was calling you out, Ted. You have no problem with even the grossest of injustices, as long as the wolf wasn't eating you. But when the wolf finally came to your door, how you have howled! "IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!! LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO MY POOR CAM! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!
Please, Ted, stop your infernal whining! While Patty didn't deserve this, you certainly did.
What goes around, comes around, Ted. There's an old Chinese proverb: If you wait long enough, you'll see your enemies floating by you in the river. The Camster has spent six years in his cage, and they had every right to keep him there. What's a little sleep deprivation among friends? He's an animal, who really didn't need a shower anyway. When you gloat at the denial of due process for others, you find that you have created a precedent that eventually will be applied to you and your loved ones.
That Sprocket hasn't thought much of the points you claim have been scored is more likely a function of your overwhelming bias than anything else.You have to be present, and observe something before you can think much of it. For whatever reason, Sprocket seems to time her appearances to when Hum makes some mild points, and misses when those points are demolished.
Sprocket's observation that the jurors have been bored to tears by Harris' ... anemic cross-examinationIf that is truly Sprocket's observation, then she must be the one sleeping through the proceedings - that is when she is there. As for Lara's cross-examination, regardless of her delivery, she is making her points. What's more, Lara has a fantastic figure, gorgeous long black hair - perfectly coiffed, delicate features, with big brown eyes, and porcelain skin. Do you honestly believe a jury of ten men will be bored when she is standing at the podium, whether she is speaking or not?
Ken: Craig Hum has been scoring at will, leaving Harris without a lot to work with.
Ted: Oh, you think?
That has been the consensus. I equate laymen with jurors; their opinions tend to mirror those of their peers in the jury box. That Sprocket hasn't thought much of the points you claim have been scored is more likely a function of your overwhelming bias than anything else.
"Sprocket doesn't show up when Hum gets his butt kicked.
It is intereseting [sic] that she only shows up when Hum expects a good day (or afternoon) and misses when things don't go so well for Hum."
. . . and the allegations of conspiracy continue to spread.
Patty's in a terribly difficult situation and has my sympathy. I would never expect her to publicly say that she thinks her husband is guilty, or even to believe it. I would hope, though, that some of the people in her life who have less of direct connection with Cam would give her better advice on how to cope. Conspiracy theories generally don't enhance a person's credibility.
Ken, as I said, if you happen to believe that the prosecution is doing well in this case, that's fine with me. I'm not inclined to try to convince you otherwise.
Ken Smith wrote:
As I understand it, your attendance has been sporadic -- that is, when you have been awake.I had been on the east coast, and opening statements were to take place on Tuesday 28 July. I was set to fly out Sunday night, but decided to extend my stay briefly to attend an event Sunday evening. Then jury selection ended earlier than expected, and opening statements were moved to Monday. The earliest flight I was able to get was a 5:00am Tuesday flight with a connection, landing about 10:30am at LAX. I got up about 2:20am east coast time (11:20pm Monday evening PDT) to make the 5:00am flight, and was unable to get much sleep on the plane (I couldn't get into first class on the second leg). But I was able to make it into the afternoon session on the second day of the trial. Nevertheless, I was still tired and jet-lagged even on Wednesday. That first day-and-a-half is what I missed.
Ken Smith wrote:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?"That's the way the world works, unfortunately. That was the genius of Orwell, that he could perceive it and express it in a way that all could understand. Who, in our system of governance, has more power than a judge? That's why you should avoid crossing them. Get your head screwed on, suing a judge is like pissing into the wind.
Ted: You are free, of course, to form your opinions on the basis of accounts by those whose attendance has been sporadic. And if on that basis you believe that things are going quite well for the prosecution, that's fine with me.
As I understand it, your attendance has been sporadic -- that is, when you have been awake. And as for Patty, it seems that she doesn't get a gold star, either.
Sprocket is neutral, providing us with much better coverage than anyone had any realistic hope of getting. Team Cam's courtroom antics have been appalling, indicating that Harris does not have control of his people. Sprocket's observation that the jurors have been bored to tears by Harris' and LV's anemic cross-examination is probably a lot more accurate than yours, given that you are a sociopath by nature and have an enormous personal investment in your position.
Ted: But this jury has seen prosecution witnesses in uniform, under cross-examination, try their best to hide things that undermine the prosecution's theory of the case, and then be forced to concede that they wrote such things in their reports at the time of the accident. They have also seen Detective Jeff Leslie say that the reason he considered Cameron a suspect is that because, when questioned that evening, Cameron refused to take responsibility for her death. Then, under cross, a combative Jeff Leslie was forced to concede that had Cameron "taken responsibility", that would have been regarded as a CONFESSION, and he would have been arrested and charged right there on the spot. And then they saw Leslie try to backtrack from this statement even though he had already said it.
So did the other jury. Basically, it had zero effect, insofar as any jury could -- and the first jury nearly did -- reach a finding of depraved heart murder even while finding that it was an accident. It is impossible to predict what this jury will do, but cops are cops, and people no longer expect our public servants to be scrupulously honest any more. It's a bit of a sideshow, at best.
At the end of the day, this is an Occam's Razor case. There are two and only two possible causes, and it all comes down to whether the jury believes that the amazing daisy-chain of extremely unlikely coincidences that had to happen for Lauren to die there were truly innocent. Juries being what they are, they are likely to gloss over the conflicting expert testimony, knowing that the experts for both sides are paid whores, and cut to that chase.
Under that paradigm, Patty looking like your twin is not going to be a good thing, especially if Craig Hum is able to parade a casting call for starlets in front of the jury as his previous love interests. Your outbursts in the courtroom will matter, as well as Cam's brief stint as a drama queen. As I see it, this is an extremely close case, and little things like that are going to matter.
Ken: I venture into kangaroo courtrooms where the judge is the defendant
Ted: And whose fault is that? You're the one who names them as defendants, trying to be clever.
Ted, if you had the first fucking clue as to what law is, you would know better. Why is it that veteran lawyers with degrees from prestigious law schools like Stanford, Georgetown, George Washington, Harvard, and Duke can see what I'm doing in a heartbeat and approve of my theories, but a fat moron who got his own "law degree" from the dregs of a bottle of Wild Turkey can't? You think that they might know something you don't? Ya think?
Ted: How has that worked out for you so far? I guess you haven't learned yet that that sh*t don't work. As LBJ used to say, don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?"
These are your rules, Ted. If Cam Brown gets run over by the "skunks," IT'S NO BIG LOSS!!! He deserved to get fucked in the ass, according to your own god. Why should we cry even a single tear?
I don't know what "works." I took a calculated risk that, if I could attract media attention to this circus, I would eventually prevail. I could have found an honest judge. A lot of things could have happened. But that is true with every legal proceeding -- which is why good lawyers advise you to keep out of court if at all possible. The corruption we have been able to document is staggering.
Ken Smith wrote:
Craig Hum has been scoring at will, leaving Harris without a lot to work with.Oh, you think?
Craig Hum has been scoring at will, leaving Harris without a lot to work with.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Ken: You two have the worst case of trial delusion I have ever seen,
Ted: And upon what basis can you make such a statement?
Your incessant stream of verbal diarrhea over the last five years.
Ken Smith wrote:
I venture into kangaroo courtrooms where the judge is the defendantAnd whose fault is that? You're the one who names them as defendants, trying to be clever. How has that worked out for you so far? I guess you haven't learned yet that that sh*t don't work. As LBJ used to say, don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk.
Ken Smith wrote:
You two have the worst case of trial delusion I have ever seen,And upon what basis can you make such a statement? You have never even set foot in the courtroom. You are free, of course, to form your opinions on the basis of accounts by those whose attendance has been sporadic. And if on that basis you believe that things are going quite well for the prosecution, that's fine with me.
It's a well-known saying in legal circles that you can never figure a jury, and the same is true for this one. But this jury has seen prosecution witnesses in uniform, under cross-examination, try their best to hide things that undermine the prosecution's theory of the case, and then be forced to concede that they wrote such things in their reports at the time of the accident. They have also seen Detective Jeff Leslie say that the reason he considered Cameron a suspect is that because, when questioned that evening, Cameron refused to take responsibility for her death. Then, under cross, a combative Jeff Leslie was forced to concede that had Cameron "taken responsibility", that would have been regarded as a CONFESSION, and he would have been arrested and charged right there on the spot. And then they saw Leslie try to backtrack from this statement even though he had already said it. (These are some of the things that Sprocket has missed.)
Anonymous: Thanks for the update. I find it very interesting that Brown's family - parents, siblings are not in attendance. Have you ever seen them in the courtroom?
Sprocket: Brown's wife, Patty and Patty's brother, Ted are in the courtroom most days.
I am guessing the reason some of these other relatives are not in the courtroom is because they "could be" on the defense witness list.
Tiamat knows, I would never call Ted to the stand. He would have been great as a character witness, but the guy couldn't tell the truth with a compass and a road map.
Acquaintance: We are not getting an absolutely comprehensive picture of this trial due to Sprocket's occasional absences, but I know of very few trials anywhere that have so much of the testimony so readily available to persons not physically present. It's refreshing to read in-depth accounts that aren't colored by either vitriol toward the defendant's associates on the one hand or accusations of conspiratorial misconduct by the police and the prosecution on the other. Assuming that defense counsel is fully informed and is competent, most evidentiary issues should have been addressed by now and, if any have been addressed unsatisfactorily, appellate relief remains available. This trial should be decided on nothing other than the evidence introduced.
I concur. We are getting great coverage. Unfortunately, nothing but a slavish regurgitation of their electric-beer-inspired paranoid delusions will please the Kook Kaldis Klan.
From what I'm seeing, we're getting a pretty good trial. Pastor is running a tight ship, and has laid down the law regarding the comical outbursts of the Klan. It's a faster trial, as everyone knows what's coming. Craig Hum has been scoring at will, leaving Harris without a lot to work with. Right now, my main concern is that Harris' apparent ineptitude may lose what is a fairly winnable case.
Ted: but Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend.
She may be now, but by your own admission, she wasn't his main squeeze when she first walked into the courtroom. Pretty much everyone who has considered this case has found it far more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren, and many believe it to be true beyond a reasonable doubt -- like ten of the twelve jurors in the original trial. Whether Denise Nix was persuaded by her hearing of the evidence (probable but not certain), only she can answer.
Besides, what Farren thinks is irrelevant, as John and Ken have already extracted their kilograms of flesh and in all likelihood, won't comment until a verdict is rendered.
All you can do is hurl feces from your own pig-sty at everyone ... from witnesses to reporters to the city fathers of Rancho Palos Verdes. I'm not even sure any Angelinos are left who haven't been accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself.
You just can't deal with the fact that, when faced with the bare facts of this case, 99% of the public is going to conclude that it was a murder.
Ted: If I am faced with the choice of taking the advice of Mark Geragos and/or Pat Harris vs. taking the advice of Ken Smith
The inimitable harpy Anne Coulter put it this way:
Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They should advertise exclusively on MSNBC. Maybe they could even get Al Gore to endorse them and hire Howard Dean as their spokesman. Our motto: "A HUMILIATING DEFEAT EVERY TIME — OR YOUR MONEY BACK!" ...Ted Kaldis.
At least Shrum's client only has to go back to the Senate. Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death.
This came as no surprise to those who have followed the fate of Geragos' other hapless clients throughout the years. (Or, to be fair, the evidence against Peterson.) Among Geragos' clients are:
* Clinton crony Susan McDougal: spent 18 months in federal prison. In his defense, at least Geragos didn't get Susan McDougal the death penalty. Any additional damage Geragos could do to McDougal's case was nullified when Clinton granted her a presidential pardon hours before he left office. As Susan McDougal assured New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in 1997, Clinton would never pardon her: "He's not going to wake up one day and confer it on me." As to how McDougal knows the way Bill Clinton behaves when he first wakes up in the morning, I'll leave that to your imagination.
* Gary Condit: suspected (but never accused!) of involvement in Chandra Levy's disappearance. Condit was never charged with any crime. But he hired Geragos to manage a media campaign to defend his reputation. The next thing Condit knew, he was kissing his 30-year political career goodbye when he lost to his Democratic primary opponent by a whopping 18 points. Or as the kids are saying these days, Condit got "shrummed" by 18 points. The only way Condit could have lost by a bigger margin would be if Bob Shrum had managed his campaign.
* Winona Ryder: convicted of grand theft. Instead of having her throw herself on the state's mercy and beg for a plea bargain, Geragos took the case to trial, where the jury had to balance a videotape of Ryder caught in the act of stealing against Geragos' argument that the store security guards were mean to her. (If there was any more to the defense's theory, I missed it.) Geragos boasts that he won a sentence of only community service and probation for Ryder. That might be something to crow about if the prosecutor had asked for anything more than ... community service and probation.
* Michael Jackson: fired Geragos almost immediately after hiring him. Jackson has sterile facial masks that lasted longer than this guy. I guess he figured, hey, it's no skin off my nose. As we go to press, Jackson remains a free man. ...
The only reason to hire Mark Geragos is if the only other attorney left on Earth is Mickey Sherman, aka the "Mark Geragos of the East Coast." And that's only if Long Island gunman Colin Ferguson, who famously represented himself at trial, is not taking new clients.
But even Geragos and Sherman would never sneeringly dismiss evidence in a murder trial as "circumstantial evidence." Only nonlawyers who imagine they are learning about law from "Court TV" think "circumstantial evidence" means "paltry evidence." After leaping for the channel clicker for six months whenever the name "Scott Peterson" wafted from the television (on the grounds that in a country of 300 million people, some men will kill their wives), I offer this as my sole contribution to the endless national discussion.
In a murder case, all evidence of guilt other than eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial." Inasmuch as most murders do not occur at Grand Central Terminal during rush hour, it is not an uncommon occurrence to have murder convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is "circumstantial evidence." Fingerprints are "circumstantial evidence." An eyewitness account of the perpetrator fleeing the scene of a stabbing with a bloody knife is "circumstantial evidence." Please stop referring to "circumstantial evidence" as if it doesn't count. There's a name for people who take a dim view of circumstantial evidence because they don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence: They're called
http:// www.jewishworldreview.com...ulter121604.asp
I venture into kangaroo courtrooms where the judge is the defendant -- certainly, not by choice -- and decides her own fate. You think this is fair, but whine because a judge is pro-defendant? Geragos goes into neutral courtrooms and still loses regularly.
Acquaintance: From the portions of cross-examination that I've read, it's not clear that Harris' questioning is going to persuade many people that haven't already thrown in their lot with the defense.
anony: That is because Sprocket doesn't show up when Hum gets his butt kicked.
It is intereseting that she only shows up when Hum expects a good day (or afternoon) and misses when things don't go so well for Hum.
Why don't you just admit that you are Patty Kaldis Brown, and be done with it? Let's face it: No one else is in the freakin' courtroom on a consistent basis and besides, it has been reported by Sprocket that even you have missed a few sessions.
I concur with Acquaintance, based in no small part on Sprocket's observations: Harris and Tonto are boring the jury to tears. In cross, the attorney is testifying. The questions should be phrased in such a way that the only answer a witness can give is yes or no, and you should never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. Based on that standard, what we do know about Harris' performance is that it has been a disaster heretofore.
You two have the worst case of trial delusion I have ever seen, and your paranoia rivals that of Kim Jong-ILL. Nothing personal, but you're like South Stands Fans: Your beloved Broncos never hold, while da Raiders commit multiple personal fouls on every play. You've accused everyone in the freakin' city of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself. Sprocket is a veteran trial watcher who doesn't have a dog in this hunt and thanks to her, we have better coverage of the proceedings than we could have reasonably hoped for.
There is a solution, of course: Put up your own website, publishing every single document filed with the Court. Publish the portions of the record where you believe that Harris has scored key points. Of course, everyone is going to discount what you say because of who you are, but that can't be helped. It makes one hell of a lot more sense than what you are doing now. If you are going to fight your battle in the media, then by all means fight it.
From the portions of cross-examination that I've read, it's not clear that Harris' questioning is going to persuade many people that haven't already thrown in their lot with the defense.That is because Sprocket doesn't show up when Hum gets his butt kicked.
It is intereseting that she only shows up when Hum expects a good day (or afternoon) and misses when things don't go so well for Hum.
Ken Smith wrote:
you do have a megaphone -- one you have failed to useIf I am faced with the choice of taking the advice of Mark Geragos and/or Pat Harris vs. taking the advice of Ken Smith ... well, I KNOW what Ken's record is in the courtroom, so it's an easy choice. Ken: STFU!
Ken Smith wrote:
Denise [Nix] and Shannon Farren might have been two of the many people who relied upon their common sense (as defined in a previous post) to make a snap judgment as to Cam's guilt or innocence.Can't speak for Denise Nix, but Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend. Get real.
We are not getting an absolutely comprehensive picture of this trial due to Sprocket's occasional absences, but I know of very few trials anywhere that have so much of the testimony so readily available to persons not physically present. It's refreshing to read in-depth accounts that aren't colored by either vitriol toward the defendant's associates on the one hand or accusations of conspiratorial misconduct by the police and the prosecution on the other. Assuming that defense counsel is fully informed and is competent, most evidentiary issues should have been addressed by now and, if any have been addressed unsatisfactorily, appellate relief remains available. This trial should be decided on nothing other than the evidence introduced.
From the portions of cross-examination that I've read, it's not clear that Harris' questioning is going to persuade many people that haven't already thrown in their lot with the defense.
Ted: I'm not so sure of Sprocket's impartiality. She is quite congenial to Lauren's family (which, to be sure, is nothing to fault her on), and to others sympathetic to the prosecution case, even readily engaging them in conversation. And this includes even members of the prosecution team. On the other hand, she very rudely won't even acknowledge so much as an inocuous greeting from us, or indeed our very presence.
Probably because you are such a raging asshole, Ted. In the last trial, you made it a point to stalk everyone in the freakin' courtroom.
Ted: Couple this with the fact that, whether by happenstance or design, she has consistently missed critical parts of the defense's cross-examination, and we have a problem. Those who are relying on Sprocket's accounts for an impartial report of what has happened in this trial are not getting it.You two really need to get together and figure out your facts. I'm inclined to agree with CI here; Sprocket will tell you if she missed the freakin' train.
CI: Sprocket, although she is not there for all of the testimony, has not been there selectively. She has sat through both sides during the time she has available to do so. I commend her efforts so far.
The only reason we have to rely on Sprocket is that no one else is doing her job. In a modern courtroom, the court reporter's notes are available almost in real-time; if there is testimony at cross you deem significant, fair use presumptively applies. Why don't you have a website with excerpts available within a day or two of that testimony? Why can't I find the "Free Cameron Brown" website in a Google search?
CI: Sprocket, although she is not there for all of the testimony, has not been there selectively. She has sat through both sides during the time she has available to do so.
Sprocket has the luxury of focusing on one case at a time -- a luxury Denise Nix does not have. As she sat through the first trial, and the second verse appears to be the same as the first, she is only going to be there for what she considers to be the highlights. This, in turn, is a strategy you need to take advantage of.
Nix has surmised that she has seen it all (and maybe she has). If you have anything new to present, you need to be prepared to give her the heads'-up.
CI: Bias is apparent when someone supports one side of the argument to the exclusion of all else. If a person only listens to or reports one side -- it shows bias.
This, as you know, is the short definition of one Theodore A. Kaldis: Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt (Men willingly believe what they wish for).
CI: It's a far cry from what we saw the last time around. It's a bit naive, but some people still believe that only the guilty make it into a courtroom.
The trick here is in separating "bias" acquired during the consideration of evidence and the more deep-seated bias you might have going in. Denise and Shannon Farren might have been two of the many people who relied upon their common sense (as defined in a previous post) to make a snap judgment as to Cam's guilt or innocence.
The only judgment I have made is one of whether there was probable cause to arrest Cam for murder. Given the standards in question -- which I find unacceptably low, but the law is the law, and I am no longer a Californian -- I cannot see how that standard wasn't met. This, in turn, is imho dispositive of many (but not all!) of Team Cam's complaints concerning due process violations. Some have merit, where proven true (and let us say that one of those violations have reeked to high heaven, and I do mean literally, so we can't say they aren't proven). Others remain in the land of Ted's paranoid fantasies.
The stark reality is that you are in a public relations war. You probably lost Denise by attacking her, as opposed to attempting to persuade her. Shannon Farren is a special case, but imho, the outcome would have been more-or-less the same regardless of her purported relationship with Craig Hum, given who she worked for and their modus operandi. And you guys are basically getting creamed -- partly due to Ted's often-inane arguments, and partly due to the fact that you haven't done what it takes to get your side heard in the arena of public discourse.
When John and Patsy Ramsay fell under suspicion of murdering JonBenet, they hired a P.R. firm to get their side of the story into the public arena. We're doing the same thing over at knowyourcourts.com, documenting judicial misconduct with elan and precision. You don't have the Ramsays' resources, but you do have a megaphone -- one you have failed to use. When you Google "Cameron Brown trial," what comes up first?
Cameron Brown TrialThat's right: Loretta is on first base, and Denise Nix is batting clean-up. "Free Cameron Brown" gets you to pictures of a famous triathlete. (Pat Harris could have and should have given you more help, imho.) It truly boggles the mind that, in light of Ted's purported Net-savvy, you have done such a spectacularly poor job of making your case. Where on Earth is Ted's vastly superior (well, only in his own mind) "common sense?"
Cameron Brown Trial. Case background and updates for the trial of Cameron John Brown for the murder of Lauren Sarene Key. ...
cameron-brown.blogspot.com/
Once you understand where you have failed, you should be able to understand why everyone seems to be against you. The other side has won that war -- BY DEFAULT. Don't blame the people; blame the staggeringly-incompetent messenger.
I'm not so sure of Sprocket's impartiality. She is quite congenial to Lauren's family (which, to be sure, is nothing to fault her on), and to others sympathetic to the prosecution case, even readily engaging them in conversation. And this includes even members of the prosecution team. On the other hand, she very rudely won't even acknowledge so much as an inocuous greeting from us, or indeed our very presence. This behaviour inclines me to question her supposed impartiality. Couple this with the fact that, whether by happenstance or design, she has consistently missed critical parts of the defense's cross-examination, and we have a problem. Those who are relying on Sprocket's accounts for an impartial report of what has happened in this trial are not getting it.
Bias is apparent when someone supports one side of the argument to the exclusion of all else. If a person only listens to or reports one side -- it shows bias. For instance, only appearing to hear the prosecutors statements or the prosecution witnesses during their direct testimony. Sprocket, although she is not there for all of the testimony, has not been there selectively. She has sat through both sides during the time she has available to do so. I commend her efforts so far. It's a far cry from what we saw the last time around. It's a bit naive, but some people still believe that only the guilty make it into a courtroom.
CI: Yes, I also agree that Sprocket's work is very good. She misses some things, but she doesn't have the hateful nature we have seen from others, and she isn't motivated by a chip on her shoulder or an ax to grind. We all know that Sprocket leans toward the prosecution, but perhaps most of us did until something happened that made us skeptical. Every defendant deserves fairness from what should be an unbiased media.
I don't see any pervasive bias in what I've read, and let's face it: Team Cam isn't exactly made up of scrupulously neutral observers. You have to recognize that 99% of the planet doesn't see this case the way you do. Most people look at this through the lens of their common sense, and come out with conclusions like this:
I am enthralled by this case and only learned of it when I read information on the retrial. Since then I have read everything that I have been able to find on the internet. I wake up at night thinking about that poor, sweet little girl. I alternate between crying and wanting to throw up. Thank you all for posting. Please God if there is any justice let him be convicted. I can't imagine the pain this family has endured. I can't even handle it and I never met Lauren but I do have a little girl. His lack of emotion is absolutely mind boggling.Ultimately, this is what you have to fight: the common-sense perception that when in a potentially life-threatening situation, parents of toddlers are zealously protective of them. Melbourne. New Orleans. When parents kill their young, it is invariably in the context of a nasty relationship. And the WTF factor applies: What on Earth was Cam doing up there with Lauren in the first place?!?
Does anyone have any insight on his parents? I read somewhere that they are wealthy. I wonder if they are in support of him or have realized that they sired a heartless monster.
Sprocket has done a commendable job of remaining reasonably neutral, but like Ted says, being in the courtroom and listening to the testimony can persuade. Team Cam has one of the worst cases of collective trial delusion in the history of mankind; you won't even accept that there are a lot of bad facts here. There are, and Sprocket has pointed out a number of them.
Apart from this serving as a "teachable moment" for Ted the Insufferable Hypocrite, I'm trying my level best to look at this case clinically. I don't expect to meet any member of Team Cam in the foreseeable future, and could care less whether Cam is convicted or acquitted. I have no real way of knowing to a certainty what happened on that day (as a push would be as good as a slip), and based on my admittedly incomplete knowledge of the facts, I could see this trial going either way. All I want to see is that the system work as it is designed, and hope that the correct outcome is reached. I have repeatedly stated that I am happy to leave this decision in the hands of the jury, because they will know more about what happened than I will ever care to.
Lord knows that I don't trust our government, at any level, whether it is being run by the Bush junta or Obama's gang. I'm about as fair as anyone is going to get in this case, and I don't see that Sprocket has taken liberties on either side. You have to realize that your opponents get the first at-bat, and that they will score a few runs.
Yes, I also agree that Sprocket's work is very good. She misses some things, but she doesn't have the hateful nature we have seen from others, and she isn't motivated by a chip on her shoulder or an ax to grind. We all know that Sprocket leans toward the prosecution, but perhaps most of us did until something happened that made us skeptical. Every defendant deserves fairness from what should be an unbiased media.
Sprocket: 1:18 pm: Ted arrives.
You can't beat reporting like this. When it comes to giving us a flavor for the proceedings, Sprocket's work is superb.
Sprocket: 1:29 pm: Patty Brown arrives. She was missing a few days. When Harris arrives in the hallway I approach him and ask him if he has a moment. He anticipates my statement and says, "It wasn't you, right?" I inform him it was another blogger and that I never covered the Peterson case. He asks me again if I have 1 million page loads a day. I tell him that's incorrect; that my blog has reached 1 million page loads in two years. ...These are marvelous insights into the trial as a human institution. Persuasion is every bit as much about how you present your facts as it is about what facts you present, and Hum appears to be winning this battle.
Back inside 107, Pastor is on the bench and he chats pleasantly with the witness about something mundane. Patty sits in the front row on the far left right beside the aisle wearing an all blue outfit. Ted is sitting in the third row. I note that Sarah is nicely dressed in a black top with ruffles and black and white weave pants. ...
LV: You've seen a range of reactions from people who have experienced a loss. You've seen people be calm?
RE: I've never seen that in a violent death, especially with a family member. [...] They're usually upset.
LV: You've testified taht you've said you've seen a range of emotions that people react to a loss?
RE: When you're asking for a range, in violent deaths, I've seen people scream, pray, speak in tongues. [...] But I've never seen anybody remain completely calm. ...
The jury looks a bit restless, bored. I saw this sometimes with the Spector jury with the cross examinations that would drag on and on.
Sprocket: Harris doesn't appear to be watching the jury for her. Maybe their clerk is.I'm looking at this and seeing that things are not going well for Team Cam. They don't seem to know what they want out of their witnesses, and are taking too long to get wherever they are going.
LV: Once you came back to Brown to the archery range... [...] And he put his head in his two hands?
RE: Yes.
LV: And he let out a sigh?
RE: Yes.
(I wonder, is this the extent of the defendant's emotional response to the violent death of his daughter?) [OUCH!]
I note that she is taking too long between questions, flipping back and forth in her clipped papers. There a couple more questions she asks but my notes are not clear. That's the end of cross. Hum redirects his witness.
Ted: I have no idea who "missy" is. Judges generally do not take kindly to people sleeping in their courtrooms, and certainly this one is no different. As far as I know, shorts are not considered appropriate attire for the courtroom and are not allowed. Moreover, I don't like shorts, I NEVER wear them, and I don't even own a pair.
With legs like yours, that is certainly understandable. "Missy" sounds like a drive-by, but the net effect of these disturbances is problematic.
Ted: I saw Denise Nix pop in and figured she must be covering another matter elsewhere in the courthouse. Her account is straightforward. Cameron did NOT ingratiate himself to the judge with what he did. But then, he's the one who's been undergoing sleep-deprivation in jail.
She covers a lot of things, which is why you will have to tip her off if you know that something is going to be going on. Pay attention to little things like this. Sometimes, you just have to suck it up.
Ted: I do not begrudge Sarah the opportunity to sit in on the trial. I'm sure Pat Harris must have had his reasons for making such a motion, but I don't believe that I would have done so if I were in his place.
For once, you and I concur with regard to tactics. It was a battle Harris wasn't going to win (as Judge Pastor has almost plenary authority) and at this point, it would take some explaining to the jury for her to be removed from the courtroom, while Patty was allowed to stay. Don't think for a minute that the jurors don't know who is who.
Ted: Ken, you're really not getting a sense of what is actually going on in the courtroom just by reading others' accounts. You really have to be there to see for yourself.
I'm sure I'd come away with a different take than you, mostly because I know what to look for. That having been said, Sprocket's reports almost qualify as a transcript, along with some useful and insightful commentary. Denise Nix's report doesn't need embellishment; that move was bad enough on its own. Thanks to Sprocket, we're getting a reasonably clear picture of what almost resulted in a conviction last time (Saad's testimony was damning; I can see why Geragos wanted to smear him). The straightforward reports (e.g., Patty's outburst, and Harris' admonishment) provide plenty of grist for the mill.
When it comes to nuance, the jury is the best judge. I won't second-guess them, regardless of how this case comes out; I can see probable cause in spades. I trust twelve citizens picked at random.
I wish Loretta well on her new endeavours.
I saw Denise Nix pop in and figured she must be covering another matter elsewhere in the courthouse. Her account is straightforward. Cameron did NOT ingratiate himself to the judge with what he did. But then, he's the one who's been undergoing sleep-deprivation in jail.
I do not begrudge Sarah the opportunity to sit in on the trial. I'm sure Pat Harris must have had his reasons for making such a motion, but I don't believe that I would have done so if I were in his place.
I have no idea who "missy" is. Judges generally do not take kindly to people sleeping in their courtrooms, and certainly this one is no different. As far as I know, shorts are not considered appropriate attire for the courtroom and are not allowed. Moreover, I don't like shorts, I NEVER wear them, and I don't even own a pair.
Ken, you're really not getting a sense of what is actually going on in the courtroom just by reading others' accounts. You really have to be there to see for yourself.
That is very good news, Loretta. It is good to know that you have channeled your creativity and imagination into a positive and hopefully lucrative endeavor. The field is wide open for you to do well. Good luck.
I popped my head into the trial today. I was blown away with the disservice Cam Brown's supporters are acting. Whom I believed to be Cam's mother, but was in reality his wife, had emotional outburst in the courtroom. Some guy, who should have been prohibited from wearing shorts and sandals in a courtroom or anywhere else, was napping. What is the circus all about? Do these people support Cam? The behavior and actions indicated that they would like Cam to behind bars so they can continue to have a purpose in their lives. OMG!
My play is off-Broadway right now, Ted. It opened on July 30 and runs until August 10, possibly longer, but not beyond the end of August. The director and I also created a production company and will be producing more new work in the near future. I'm working on a commissioned comedy monologue for a stand-up comic I met in NYC when she did the staged reading for my play. She isn't who we picked to do the current play, but we want to work with her on something else.
So, yes, I'm officially an off-Broadway playwright and the play will be published after its production, since that's the only way you can get a play published - it has to be produced first.
This case would make an interesting play. Maybe you should consider writing it as a play or a screenplay. When the trial is over, you'll have plenty of free time to work on it. Right now, I can only follow the news stories and Sprocket's notes, and may obtain a few days' worth of transcripts later in the trial. I don't think there's much I can write about Cam's case that would be new after the previous work I already did.
Anyway, good luck.
What on Earth was this all about?
While on the 9th Floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center downtown today for closing arguments in the Miguel Magallon death penalty trial, I popped into the Cameron Brown murder retrial to see what's been going on.http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/
I had apparently just missed a bit of drama. According to Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum, proceedings were postponed for about an hour because Brown, 47, refused to come out of his jail cell. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor was set to sign an extraction order that would give deputies permission to physically extract him when Brown came out on his own.
Then, defense attorney Pat Harris asked that 4-year-old victim Lauren Sarene Key's mother, Sarah Key-Marer, who has watched the entire trial, be excluded from the courtroom because her presence was jeopardizing his client's right to a fair trial. Hum argued against it, and Key-Marer addressed the judge, asking that she be allowed to remain - as she's been looking for answers for nine years. In the end, Pastor allowed her to stay.
Good GRIEF!!! You wait three years to get the judge you want, and spend the next two weeks doing everything in your power to piss him off! Ted with his snoring, Patty with her vocalizations, and Cam with ... WTF?!
Harris has lost all control of Team Cam. You guys need to come correct and behave; Cam's life is literally at stake.
Ken Smith wrote:
That wouldn't explain the narcolepsy.You don't know what my schedule was last week.
Ted: My nose got broken in a car accident many years ago.
That wouldn't explain the narcolepsy. It would be one thing if you were on pain-killers due to a recent break, but it shouldn't be affecting you twenty years later. The alternative explanation is that you are on the border of morbid obesity, and need to spend a little time in the gym.
My nose got broken in a car accident many years ago.
So typical of you, Ken. 
Sprocket: Ted addresses the Judge. He states that he broke his nose and his sinuses are blocked and he felt he was getting drowsy so he stepped out. He also said he has a tendency to snore when he starts to fall asleep.
So, how DID the nose get broken? Trip on a kerb[sic] in another drunken stupor, and fall flat on your face? Rough sex in the men's room? One of your stalking victims finally give you the punch in the nose you deserve?
Inquiring minds need a good laugh.
Ken: Sounds like somebody finally punched the asshole out.
Ted: Nope. He was actually quite nice and polite about it.
ROTFLMAO!!!! Someone was polite about breaking your nose? I understand that you poofters are into rough sex, but isn't that just a little bit over the top?
More weirdness coming to the fore:
Some new information that wasn't revealed in the first trial emerged during direct and cross-examination. For example, Patty Brown, Lauren's step-mother, occasionally picked her up for visition (even though she had no legal standing to do so) and at one time held out her arms to the child and said, "Come to Mommy." Lauren reportedly responded to this by cringing. Another interesting anecdote revealed that Brown told Key-Marer that he and his new wife were moving "up north" and were going to start their own family. How that was to occur with a woman well beyond childbearing age was never explained.This is just weird -- but it does make sense of the voodoo kit found beneath Patty's bed. Invasion of the child-snatcher? It would explain why Cam changed his position on adoption (left to his own devices, he probably would have let her go), and supports the theory that he felt he would have to kill Lauren to rid himself of the problem. Not a good fact at all, really.
Another piece of weirdness, through Sprocket: "10:55 am: Sarah reenters the courtroom. I see Ted speaking to the pretty young blond-haired woman and I wonder if this is someone Ted knows." As I understand it, Ted talks to EVERYONE in the courtroom, and even stalks them to find out who they are.
Ken Smith wrote:
Sounds like somebody finally punched the asshole out.Nope. He was actually quite nice and polite about it. I was quite drowsy at the time, but never did nod out. Nevertheless, we did [later] come to an understanding.
BTW, there is only ONE "@**hole" here, and it AIN'T me. (It is OBVIOUS to everyone, however, who it is.)
Acquaintance: International conspiracies, once operating, tend to grow rather rapidly, doncha know.
I'm not even sure any Angelinos are left who haven't been accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself.
If you've heard as many crackpot conspiracy theories as I've heard from Ted, your amusement level on these things is high.
Ken: Ken said: According to "Sprocket," this juicy little tidbit, if true, never came out during cross-examination.
CI: You don't know that, Ken.
1. Sprocket has not posted all of her notes for the days she was present in the courtroom.
2. Sprocket was not there for all of the testimony of all of the witnesses.
To the contrary, (a) Sprocket was there for THAT witness' testimony, and (b) she is experienced and savvy enough to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ted is a compulsive liar; when he says that the sky is blue, one is almost compelled to ask for a second opinion. Sprocket's reporting is both detailed and focused. If that tidbit had come out in cross with any kind of clarity, I'd be inclined to expect her to notice.
Thanks to Sprocket, the mystery surrounding Ted is solved:
Judge Pastor addresses Ted, Patty's brother. Yesterday he was nodding off in his seat again. The bailiff had to comment to him. So that's what that was about yesterday. Pastor wants none of that in his courtroom.Sounds like somebody finally punched the asshole out.
Ted addresses the Judge. He states that he broke his nose and his sinuses are blocked and he felt he was getting drowsy so he stepped out. He also said he has a tendency to snore when he starts to fall asleep.
Yep, Acquaintance, it was something about that mundane although Ted knows the direction to the bathroom. It had nothing to do with favor or disfavor toward one side or the other. As for the idle chatter that it may provoke, that happens anyhow.
Ken said: According to "Sprocket," this juicy little tidbit, if true, never came out during cross-examination.
You don't know that, Ken.
1. Sprocket has not posted all of her notes for the days she was present in the courtroom.
2. Sprocket was not there for all of the testimony of all of the witnesses.
Ted's chat with the bailiff could have been as mundane as asking directions to the restroom. Somehow I doubt that's it, though. If there has been anything that demonstrates favor toward the prosecution, though, it should be aired. International conspiracies, once operating, tend to grow rather rapidly, doncha know.
Acquaintance: Sprocket's most recent post on the case mentions an exchange between Ted and the bailiff (Sprocket didn't hear what was said or see what prompted the exchange) after which Ted left the courtroom. Anyone care to discuss in greater detail?
I don't really expect that you'll get the unvarnished truth here, Acquaintance. Team Cam has a history of impulse-control problems in the courtroom; reports have it that Daddy Warbucks actually had it out with Judge Arnold, and Patty has been admonished in both trials. Even in the best of times, Ted has a strained relationship with the truth; in most cases, he would rather gnaw his arm off than admit a truth that paints him in a bad light. OTOH, while bailiffs don't often ask anyone to leave a courtroom without good reason, "good reason" may simply mean that Ted was violating one of the judge's idiosyncratic rules.
If it is anything reflecting poorly on Trig, you'd be better off asking Shannon Farren, because he doesn't do admissions.
Sprocket's most recent post on the case mentions an exchange between Ted and the bailiff (Sprocket didn't hear what was said or see what prompted the exchange) after which Ted left the courtroom. Anyone care to discuss in greater detail?
Ted shrieked: This witness is LYING THROUGH HER TEETH!
According to "Sprocket," this juicy little tidbit, if true, never came out during cross-examination. Is Sprocket -- a veteran blogger who was observed taking copious notes, who has been praised here for her fairness (and not just by me), and who doesn't have a dog in the hunt -- lying about this, did Harris fuck up royally (which means that it doesn't matter, because the jury was never apprised of it), or [abuse elided]
[abusive blather elided ...]
Edited By Siteowner
Ken Smith wrote:
[Quoting Sprocket quoting a witness "D. Jenkin":]This witness is LYING THROUGH HER TEETH! This is the woman who collected the parking fee at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. Readers local to the Palos Verdes area are invited to check out the booth where the parking fees are collected. The entrance is on a downhill and the "booth" (actually a little building that also houses a small office and public restrooms) sits substantially lower than the driveway. The attendant collecting the money is much lower than the driver of the vehicle entering -- so much so that if it is a high pickup or a van they have to use a short grappling extension to take the money. There is NO WAY that the attendant can see anyone sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle.DJ: I focused on her. She was sitting very still. She focused on me. It was very perculiar.
Like I said, local readers, go check this out. "DJ" was LYING THROUGH HER TEETH!
Sprocket: I see the bailiff get up to speak to Ted. I don't see what precipitated the bailiff getting up. Ted leaves the courtroom.Was he being a bad boy again? Ted seems to have some SERIOUS impulse-control problems.
Sprocket: Jenkin states she saw a car that caught her attention. A little girl was in the front seat. She didn't have a seat belt on and she wasn't sitting in a car seat.All these witnesses, suggesting that there was a problem. They're all part of the vast RPV Conservancy Conspiracy, right, Ted?
DJ: I focused on her. She was sitting very still. She focused on me. It was very perculiar.
She doesn't remember the car exactly. She does state that it was a beat up, white and grayish vehicle. It was not all one color. There was a luggage rack with a surfboard on top.
DJ: (The little girl) She was sitting very still. She moved only her head and focused on me.
CH: What was it about it (the situation?) that caused you to notice her.
DJ: Most kids who come to the beach...
The witness describes how the kids she usually sees are excited to go to the beach. They are upbeat; more animated. She also states, "They (the defendant and Lauren) looked so totally different. [...] The child was well kept. She was well dressed and neat; not the man. He looked dissheveled, wild. [...] To me, it looked really wierd, like a kidnapping. [...] She had eye contact with me the whole time."
Sprocket is giving us the straight scoop, and the case is going pretty much as expected. There were reasons for investigators to believe that Cam murdered Lauren; denial appears to be a river running through Ventura.
Ken: I don't know what the existing facts are in this case
Ted: Then STFU and GTFOOH.
That's our Ted, consistently demonstrating that he possesses all the "discernment" of a garden hose. Really, man, you are a galaxy-class idiot, Trig van Kaldis.
anony: This tells me that Judge Arnold was allowing him a wide berth and he was doing things that he knows better than to even try before a Judge who actually upholds the law. What a novel concept.
It's so novel, I wouldn't even know what one looks like. What you're seeing what is known in the parlance as "local knowledge." Some judges run tighter ships than others; for example, Ed Nottingham was known for running his courtroom like only a man with a lifetime sinecure could. By contrast, remember Lance Ito? The knowledge that he was a TV star ate him up.
Craig Hum has been around the block long enough to know what he can or cannot get away with in every courtroom in the L.A. system. Whether the change of judge will be worth the three-year wait remains to be seen.
anony: If this is the caliber of existing facts that I am talking, something in the same order as DNA, the jury's opinion doesn't change it. However, since I can't say more than that right now, let's table this discussion for now.
Owing to the nature of this case, there is no "silver bullet" capable of exonerating Cam Brown: There were two and only two people on that cliff that day ... and dead girls tell no tales. Given the number of false alarms coming from Team Cam -- remember Ted's "Preparation-H-Bomb," which Geragos allegedly didn't see fit to detonate because it would wreck Hum's career (you can't get much more stupid than Ted, even when you try) -- over the years, you will understand my healthy skepticism.
anony: In the end the prosecution's case will fizzle.
Spoken like someone who has a galaxy-class case of trial delusion. There is nothing about this case that lends itself to simple resolution either way, which is why I've said all along that it would be a nail-biter. I don't think you have a clue as to how close you came to losing last time. Juries can be funny things....
Ken Smith wrote:
I don't know what the existing facts are in this caseThen STFU and GTFOOH.
I don't know what the existing facts are in this case and with all respect, neither do you. "Existing facts" are what the jury say they are (with an array of irrelevant technical exceptions), and they haven't spoken.Not necessarily. For example, DNA evidence proves that juries get it wrong all the time. If this is the caliber of existing facts that I am talking, something in the same order as DNA, the jury's opinion doesn't change it. However, since I can't say more than that right now, let's table this discussion for now.
In the end the prosecution's case will fizzle.
As far phantom fouls are concerned, there is a dramatic difference in Mr. Hum's presentation this time around. All of the shenanigans he pulled last time are not happening now. In fact he has not even tried. This tells me that Judge Arnold was allowing him a wide berth and he was doing things that he knows better than to even try before a Judge who actually upholds the law. What a novel concept.
anony: We don't have a problem with that. We expect a different interpretation of existing facts - an alternate story using the existing facts. Our problem with what is happening here is that they altered the existing facts in order to make their theory work. Surely you see the distinction Ken.
I don't know what the existing facts are in this case and with all respect, neither do you. "Existing facts" are what the jury say they are (with an array of irrelevant technical exceptions), and they haven't spoken. The respective sides are entitled to disagree as to what the facts are; it is the rare case where they don't (where the matter is submitted on stipulated facts). Bottom line, you guys are spectacularly clueless with respect to the process. You see phantom "fouls" at every turn which aren't, and have probably missed a few significant ones.
It's really nothing personal, but when you make mountains out of molehills, you detract from the case you could make. Justice Frankfurter spoke about "the clock that struck thirteen," observing that weak arguments compromise your stronger ones in the eye of your audience. The bit about Sarah in family court, by way of example, is more of a flesh wound than a silver stake in the heart of the prosecution's case. The "missing rock" is more probably emblematic of police incompetence (common) than shadowy conspiracy, and you shouldn't attempt to take the evidence farther than it leads. These things are going to happen in every criminal case involving circumstantial evidence, to be honest.
Denise Nix, who doesn't have a dog in the fight.Are you sure about that, Ken? Look deeper.
Opposing counsel spins facts their wayWe don't have a problem with that. We expect a different interpretation of existing facts - an alternate story using the existing facts. Our problem with what is happening here is that they altered the existing facts in order to make their theory work. Surely you see the distinction Ken.
(P.S. All this will be demonstrated once this case is over.)
Here is a link to the front page which will be updated later http://www.cameronbrowncase.blog...e.blogspot.com/
From Sprocket's blog:
The Acquaintance said...I tend to concur. Pretty much everything on this site is like reading the English-language version of Pravda back in the '70s. Limbaugh's wry description of the drive-by media is accurate, in the sense that in-depth reporting is rapidly becoming a lost art. Almost by default, Sprocket is who we will all be turning to.
Thanks for your thorough account. I know Cam Brown through a mutual friend and even met Sarah in early 1996, so I've been highly interested in this case all along. It's difficult to get good information about it.
Ted: Ken, you know SQUAT about what's really going on here.
As if YOUR invincible ignorance has EVER stopped you from commenting on ANYTHING....
Ted: You know squat about Cameron's financial sitiation, or his relationship to "Daddy Warbucks".
Either he testified during the first trial, or he didn't; there is no third option. And if Geragos didn't put him on the stand to attest to his largesse, he obviously didn't think much of your argument, or (more likely) the supporting facts simply weren't there. If Geragos thinks your argument is a cold-ass loser, why should I think any more of it?
Ted: Like everything else about Cameron, it has been COMPLETELY misrepresented by Craig Hum.
News flash for Ted: Opposing counsel spins facts their way, often as badly as you spin them the other way. You don't seem to have any problems with the flagrant dishonesty of the Mullarkey Court; why should anyone else be discomfited unduly by what Hum is allegedly doing?
Ted: As for Shannon Farren -- Craig Hum's GIRLFRIEND -- all you're gonna get from her is the same thing you got from Craig Hum: LIES!
If Daddy Warbucks had testified, she would have made some wry comment, much as she did when he battled Judge Arnold in his courtroom. Much of what Shannon Farren said during the first trial was corroborated by Denise Nix, who is more honest than you have ever been and doesn't have a dog in the fight.
The Kook Kaldis Klan doesn't know how to behave in the presence of a judge, proving it again during motions in limine (per Sprocket, who everyone is convinced is a credible free agent); reports have also reached me that you were harassing and even stalking jurors in the first trial, which would surprise me not at all, in light of the glaring character defects you have displayed on-line. Loretta Serrano hit the nail on the head in observing that you are like the Peterson clan -- doing more harm than good with your absurd outbursts.
I'm listening to your mentally-unhinged paranoid rants, and surmising that things are not going well for your side in the trial. You have, in your own words, let your emotion "overpower [your] reason," to the point where you are not capable of "listening to reason." Craig Hum is scoring some direct hits amidships, which is to be expected. You had to wait almost three years for this judge and still, you appear unsatisfied. This is a close case, whether you can bring yourself to acknowledge it or not.
You were always a few ailerons short of being mentally stable before, but this has driven you to the point of full-blown insanity.
Ken, you know SQUAT about what's really going on here. You know squat about Cameron's financial sitiation, or his relationship to "Daddy Warbucks". Like everything else about Cameron, it has been COMPLETELY misrepresented by Craig Hum. As for Shannon Farren -- Craig Hum's GIRLFRIEND -- all you're gonna get from her is the same thing you got from Craig Hum: LIES!
Ted: Ken, you are an outright WHACK-JOB extraordinaire. Let's see now ... Cam is living in Palos Verdes, his folks are living nearby right smack ON THE BEACH in Manhattan Beach, and he is under a "crushing financial burden". Right. And that leaves him NO recourse than to murder his daughter -- even though he was already in the process of seeking to get the child support payments reduced?
Ted, you are an incorrigible sociopath. Proof by innuendo is the only argument you know.
IIRC, testimony by the forensic accountant (through Shannon Farren) indicated that she went through Cam's bank accounts, and he didn't have two nickels to rub together. SurfDude was nearly forty, for cry-iy! Daddy Warbucks wasn't bankrolling him then, and he's not doing it now.
Unless Daddy Warbucks goes on the stand -- and iirc, he wasn't even called last time -- the jury will be precluded from contemplating your argument. Convincing me would be a Pyrrhic victory if Cam's jurors aren't persuaded. If the jury isn't going to consider it, what point is there in even bringing it up?
Ted: Knowing what we know now, it is OBVIOUS that the payments would have been reduced as a matter of course once it became evident that the reason they were so high to begin with is because of misrepresentations by Sarah.
(Whenever you read the word "obvious" in capital letters, heightened scrutiny of the underlying argument should be automatic.)
And that was going to happen when? What we know now is not what was known then (sure, he may have suspected, but mere suspicion doesn't get you too far in our court system and especially, in family court), and there is the matter of spite. It's not about "need"; it's about Cam's reported anger-management problems. Get a procession of Baywatch Babes on the stand, testifying to their experiences with his uncontrolled anger, and the defense has a problem -- especially, if Patty hasn't seen the inside of a gym in years.
I don't have a dog in this fight, Ted. I really don't care, apart from seeing that Cam gets an acceptably fair (as opposed to perfect, which no one ever gets) trial, and hoping that the jury gets it right.
Ken, you are an outright WHACK-JOB extraordinaire. Let's see now ... Cam is living in Palos Verdes, his folks are living nearby right smack ON THE BEACH in Manhattan Beach, and he is under a "crushing financial burden". Right. And that leaves him NO recourse than to murder his daughter -- even though he was already in the process of seeking to get the child support payments reduced?
Knowing what we know now, it is OBVIOUS that the payments would have been reduced as a matter of course once it became evident that the reason they were so high to begin with is because of misrepresentations by Sarah. So where's the overpowering need to commit murder?
Chump.
CI: There is little of that nonsense this time around. There is no animousity toward the defense being displayed from the bench. We don't see a judge who is hell-bent on throwing his weight around in a biased manner. So far, so good. A huge step in the right direction.
I don't know what a fair judge looks like. I had to recuse the first one I appeared before because my opponent insinuated that he bribed him, and it has been downhill from there.
This trial is going to move more smoothly because everybody knows what's going to happen. The only wild card is the effect that Hum's procession of Baywatch Babes denigrating Cam's character and self-control is going to have on the jury. Remember that the prosecution's main theme is that Cam was doing anything and everything he could think of to get out of his child support obligation, but that his anger at Sarah and vindictive character were what kept him from relinquishing his parental rights. If Cam's ex-girlfriends all look like starlets and are younger than him, and Patty looks more like his mother -- Ted, with dishwater-grey hair -- that is not going to go well for him.
It may sound crass as all hell, but there was a reason why I suggested in the strongest of terms that Patty spend a lot of time at the gym. I don't ever expect to meet her and could care less as to what she looks like -- in stark contrast to Ted, she seems like a real nice person -- but the stark reality is that juries have this annoying tendency to gloss over the evidence and use their common sense. Common sense will tell people that when parents kill their kids, it's usually in the kind of situation we see here. They are going to see Cam as a gigolo who was hard-up for cash -- Harris dolled him up for the trial -- and unless I miss my guess, neither Cam nor Patty will take the stand.
CI: If Sprocket gives a blow by blow of everything that happens during this trial, she deserves the respect of all of us. It's the ones who only tell their selected side of the events that I take issue with. The fact that so many are wrongly accused and incarcerated is a fact of life.
You mean, like Theodore A. Kaldis, Asshole-at-Law? ROTFLMAO!!!
Ted has never met an exculpatory fact or binding Supreme Court precedent he hasn't been willing to ignore. In Ted's World, public officials can abuse their offices not merely with impunity, but with his vocal approval, unless their target just happens to be his (alleged) baby-killin' brudder-in-law. He even considers it perfectly acceptable for a judge be able to decide his own case -- something every civilized society has abjured for over 400 years -- when it serves his purposes ... but you know that if Sarah Key-Marer were empowered to rule on Cam's innocence or guilt, he would howl so loud that it would shatter windows in Seattle.
Does the word "hypocrisy" ever come to your mind, CI?
The one thing you guys can't accuse me of being is "unfair." I have held you to a high standard of proof, and you have freely stated that you have withheld material evidence (which necessarily precludes my coming to a firm conclusion regarding guilt). I have also told you that I'm leaving the determination of legal guilt of innocence to the jury, though it is beyond reasonable dispute that Cam's negligence resulted in Lauren's death -- even if we assume your story to be true. Where fouls are worthy of calling (e.g., the shiv incident), I don't hesitate to call them. Most of what you are complaining about, however, is not particularly egregious or adequately proven.
Ted: So far, virtually EVERY prosecution witness has been discredited in one way or another, many of them quite spectacularly.
Again, you are the South Stands Fan. Your beloved Broncos never hold, but da Raiders commit a personal foul on every play. No one else sees this case through the rose-coloured[sic] glasses of your insanely blind partisanship. In the not-unlikely chance that Cam is found guilty this time, you are going to be sitting around wondering what happened, and the answer will be in the public reaction to this case as evidenced by comments on the blogs.
The jurors will have glossed over the detailed evidence, invoking their "common sense."
Ted: Ken, get your head screwed on! Hum CAN'T spin this one. His thesis is that Cameron murdered Lauren because he was trying to get out of child support. And his argument was that Cameron's efforts to get child support reduced, whatever way he could, are indicative of this. Now that it has been shown that Cameron was INDEED overpaying, this argument has now been undermined.
Ted, get your head screwed on! If Cam was overpaying -- a crushing burden, based on his meager salary -- he had an obvious motive to kill Lauren. You are so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see this, but you can rest assured that Hum -- and the jury -- will see it clearly.
That Sarah was lying her ass off to stick it to Cam only raises the likelihood that he murdered Lauren out of revenge. He may have sired Lauren, but he wasn't a father to her. That takes time.
Ken: EVERYBODY lies on those goddamned things [financial reports during divorces], if they can.
Ted: But it doesn't help their credibility any when they are discovered under cross-examination in court.
It depends on how discerning the jury is. If I'm in the box, I'm going to give it a lot less weight than most, because I know how common it is -- and if anything, my experience with acrimonious divorces is going to have some influence on my judgment of credibility. I am going to find that Cam had a motive. You have ten men on the jury, and the odds are decent that at least one of them is going to know someone who has been through a nasty divorce, where the man got screwed over in the support wars (it's common). They are going to find that Cam had a motive.
In the words of Eddie Murphy, "I seen shit that would turn you white." One Christian woman -- most Evangelical Christians are the scum of the earth -- had her husband confined to a mental hospital to gain advantage in a court proceeding. Another man spent Christmas night on the cold floor of a Denver jail awaiting arraignment on a non-existent arrest warrant, apparently arranged by the wife's attorney (who was sleeping with her). Custody battles are the most uncivil of wars; The War of the Roses (the Danny DeVito-Michael Roberts movie) is SO fuckin' true.
Ken Smith wrote:
As for a non-custodial parent being asked to pay 40% of his wages in child support, iirc, Cam was being asked to "catch up" for the years that he hadn't been paying.You recall INcorrectly. Cameron had asked for a paternity test VERY early on, while Sarah was still pregnant, to determine if he was really the father. But Sarah declined to submit to the test. Therefore, Cameron's obligation did not commence until the paternity test was administered. THAT is what a judge ruled.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:But it doesn't help their credibility any when they are discovered under cross-examination in court.This form was filled out under penalty of perjury, btw.EVERYBODY lies on those goddamned things, if they can.
Ken, get your head screwed on! Hum CAN'T spin this one. His thesis is that Cameron murdered Lauren because he was trying to get out of child support. And his argument was that Cameron's efforts to get child support reduced, whatever way he could, are indicative of this. Now that it has been shown that Cameron was INDEED overpaying, this argument has now been undermined.
Case Insider wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:One of MANY in this trial. So far, virtually EVERY prosecution witness has been discredited in one way or another, many of them quite spectacularly. (And some of them even have said things that tend to exonerate Cameron.)This form was filled out under penalty of perjury, btw.Well, that's an awful big oopsie!
CI: Be careful what you believe, Ken. Remember the rock? This time around it appears that Brothers never even visited the top of IP! I'm sure they took note of many of the things we have outlined for you, and suddenly things have changed....again.
I told you that both sides would learn from their mistakes, and try to minimize their weaknesses. If it doesn't come in on direct, it doesn't get heard on cross. And no, this blog had nothing at all to do with it; iirc, it made it into at least one MSM story. The "missing rock" (1) is not particularly relevant to depraved heart murder and (2) probably was a factor contributing to the hung jury in the first trial. Cops don't always get their facts straight, and Hum doesn't really need it to earn a conviction.
Again, you could believe that Lauren did slip and fall while throwing stones, and still convict Cam of Murder Two. Judging from the public reaction on the blogs, this is a realistic possibility.
Case Insider: It just occurred to me that at least a few of the jurors will probably wonder why any man was ordered to pay 40% of his wages toward child support. No one pays that much child support for one child. Curious, don't you think?
Ted: They've already found out. Sarah LIED on the form used to fill in the data for the "Disometer", the computer program used in California to determine the appropriate amount of child support that one should pay. She used the joint expenses for both her and her husband, but she put down that she was single. Moreover, her weekly salary had been cut in half on the day before she filled out the form. And it just so happened that the company for which she was working was owned by her husband and his brother. (All this information was brought out in cross-examination.)
This form was filled out under penalty of perjury, btw.
EVERYBODY lies on those goddamned things, if they can. Now, I'm not saying that it is right; I'm merely saying that it is true. It's the most consistent source of forensic work that an accountant gets. And do you know how often it gets prosecuted? That's right.
(As an amusing historical sidebar, when Bob Larson told the Westword that "everybody lies" in defense of the exorbitant compensation package he revealed during his divorce proceeding, his attorneys had to backpedal like Champ Bailey. )
That having been said, it is a fact that cuts both ways. On the one hand, Sarah did what pretty much everybody does, when given half a chance. On the other, it tends to prove that there was acrimony between Sarah and Cam, which tends to establish that he had a motive for murder.
The old golfer's axiom applies here: You have to play the ball as it lies. Sarah probably did fudge the numbers, and probably had help from her now-hubby. The statute of limitations for perjury is passed. Sarah told the truth on the stand, but if I'm Hum, I'm not feeling too queasy about the cross, because it arguably strengthens his case. If anyone has cause to be even slightly nervous, it is Sarah's lawyer in the custody case (subornation of perjury warrants disbarment, but it is never prosecuted by the bar, as I found out the hard way in the Larson case).
If this is the "H-bomb-class" evidence you claim to have, you will excuse me if I yawn. It's going to look bad to laymen on a jury, provided that they (1) haven't been through a nasty divorce, or (2) aren't CPAs or divorce lawyers.
As for a non-custodial parent being asked to pay 40% of his wages in child support, iirc, Cam was being asked to "catch up" for the years that he hadn't been paying. I'm not going to tell you that "the system" is fair and holy, but the figure was determined by a judge, and that kind of bite into one's exchequer is certainly a valid motive for murder. We are told that Cam is somewhat of a simpleton, and murder is a simpleton's solution to the problem.
If I'm a prosecuting attorney, I'm not seeing anything here that keeps me up at night.
Was this your Preparation-H-bomb, Ted? Depending on the composition of the jury, a grizzled veteran like Geragos might not have wanted to "go there" last time. I would argue that it was relevant and therefore admissible, but I could see how a judge might rule the other way. If this is what you have on Sarah, it ain't much.
This form was filled out under penalty of perjury, btw.Well, that's an awful big oopsie!
Theodore A. Kaldis
Case Insider wrote:
It just occurred to me that at least a few of the jurors will probably wonder why any man was ordered to pay 40% of his wages toward child support. No one pays that much child support for one child. Curious, don't you think?They've already found out. Sarah LIED on the form used to fill in the data for the "Disometer", the computer program used in California to determine the appropriate amount of child support that one should pay. She used the joint expenses for both her and her husband, but she put down that she was single. Moreover, her weekly salary had been cut in half on the day before she filled out the form. And it just so happened that the company for which she was working was owned by her husband and his brother. (All this information was brought out in cross-examination.)
This form was filled out under penalty of perjury, btw.
It just occurred to me that at least a few of the jurors will probably wonder why any man was ordered to pay 40% of his wages toward child support. No one pays that much child support for one child. Curious, don't you think?
If Sprocket gives a blow by blow of everything that happens during this trial, she deserves the respect of all of us. It's the ones who only tell their selected side of the events that I take issue with. The fact that so many are wrongly accused and incarcerated is a fact of life. It would probably help minimize that if our news media would take the time to listen to both sides. If they are there only for the purpose of entertainment, they are in the wrong line of work, imo.
This judge is no-nonsense and I like that. He is moving things along without the frivilous bs we came to know from the Torrance court. Jury selection took a day and a half in this courtroom. Arnold let it play out for weeks, and then took one convenient vacation after another, spent hours in sidebars and outside the view of the jury. There is little of that nonsense this time around. There is no animousity toward the defense being displayed from the bench. We don't see a judge who is hell-bent on throwing his weight around in a biased manner. So far, so good. A huge step in the right direction.
Interesting new piece of evidence. If Patty is pulling down ten grand a month, the child support is not that daunting. But without that source of jack, things get real tight real fast. This was never addressed by Team Cam, and it doesn't surprise me. Ted doesn't cop to facts that work against him.
Ken
Be careful what you believe, Ken. Remember the rock? This time around it appears that Brothers never even visited the top of IP! I'm sure they took note of many of the things we have outlined for you, and suddenly things have changed....again. No big surprise. I don't plan to make too many comments, but I can assure you that things are going along about how I expected them to. If Denise Nix wants to entertain her readers, this is a great source of entertainment!
Unfortunately, we are talking about a man's life and some of us seem to regard truth and proof with much more importance than some others.Sprocket hit the nail on the head:
The press is notorious for ignoring retrials. Rarely is there a new defense strategy or new evidence.My guess is that even Denise is going to be VERY selective as to what she does and does not cover. If there is going to be any real H-bomb-class material presented, you'd be wise to give her a head's up.
Look at Spector's retrial. He was a high profile defendant and there was very little press interest in that. Harriet Ryan of the LA Times filed maybe a dozen stories over the five-month retrial.
Craig Hum (via Sprocket): By October, 2000, the situation worsens. Brown is paying Sarah 40% of his wages to support Lauren. Brown's new wife, Patty, is fired from her job.
Interesting new piece of evidence. If Patty is pulling down ten grand a month, the child support is not that daunting. But without that source of jack, things get real tight real fast. This was never addressed by Team Cam, and it doesn't surprise me. Ted doesn't cop to facts that work against him.
According to Sprocket, Patty was a bad girl ... AGAIN.
Pat Harris whips around and in a very loud voice, says, "PATTY!" He says to her something like, "Enough." or "Be quiet." I don't have it exactly. And Judge Pastor erupts also with a very stern, angry warning of his own. He's no-nonsense. He tells her they have a two strike rule here. "Mam, if it happens again, you're out!" He tells her that he would rather that she be here, but if she does this again, she's out.Patty, this is a game of poker. The jury will be watching you. Behave. Tom Cruise's instruction to his team in A Few Good Men is spot-on. Even if you are screaming inside, act as if you expected everything bad that comes out.
Cam's life might depend on it.
Ted: "Sheesh" is a dupe of the prosecution.
Most people are going to look at this through the lens of common sense -- something you have never had even a passing acquaintance with. For every one Natalie Yeargan, there are a dozen incidents like the ones in Louisiana and Melbourne. Like it not, the average Joe Plumber is going to presume, and not without reason, that it is more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren. The circumstances are such that you have to postulate a staggering array of coincidences for it to not be a species of murder, and it doesn't help that ten out of twelve jurors were not willing to do so in the last trial. That the jury hung on the level of criminal liability -- as opposed to guilt -- is not lost on those who have read the AP and Breeze articles. In their minds, he was pronounced guilty, and can you really argue with them? After all, you would do the same thing, as you have done so in the past.
As for the jury, they have a more difficult assignment. It is not enough for them to come to the conclusion that it is considerably more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren. They have to be convinced beyond a reasonable (and not the Kaldis bar, which changes radically depending on the outcome Ted wants) doubt that Cam was legally responsible for Lauren's death (whether it is manslaughter, depraved heart murder, or premeditated murder). I won't go there because I'm not privy to the evidence ... but I am the exception, not the rule.
Ted: If Cameron Brown actually were the inhumane ogre that he has been portrayed to be, he CERTAINLY had more than enough opportunity to show that side of his personality to me. And yet he never did. Because that sort of character is possessed NOT by Cameron, but rather by the man who tries to portray him as such.
Most people who know serial killers are shocked when they find out. From what I understand, those who claim to know Cam who are not part of the Kook Kaldis Klan describe him as being capable of the requisite level of anger and/or malice. Others say that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. His ex-girlfriends would probably know a side of him you have never seen, and it is this Cameron Brown that Craig Hum intends to show at trial.
That you have never witnessed it doesn't mean that he isn't capable of it.
Case Insider: I just wanted to mention that Sprocket is once again giving a pretty decent account of what is happening in the trial. She has no dog in this fight and seems to value her own personal integrity above all. At least, that's how I have come to view her.
I concur. Unless Loretta builds a coalition willing to buy the transcripts, she's the best we've got.
[abuse blather elided] Denise is honest, but like all reporters, is woefully short on resources, and needs to write to an audience expecting to be entertained. Sprocket has enough experience to understand what's going on ([...]), and the blogger's freedom to follow the truth wherever it leads. As long as she can invest the time, she will be, far and away, our best source of the proceedings.
Edited By Siteowner
Ted: Suck 'em in with emotion, and then they won't bother to listen to reason. (Perhaps that is one of the qualities that the Colorado Bar Examiners perceived in Ken Smith's character.)
To you, reason is an undiscovered country. Again I ask: Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
"Sheesh" is a dupe of the prosecution. If Cameron Brown actually were the inhumane ogre that he has been portrayed to be, he CERTAINLY had more than enough opportunity to show that side of his personality to me. And yet he never did. Because that sort of character is possessed NOT by Cameron, but rather by the man who tries to portray him as such.
Emotion can overpower reason, and THAT is why the prosecutor started out with such an intense emotional appeal. Suck 'em in with emotion, and then they won't bother to listen to reason. (Perhaps that is one of the qualities that the Colorado Bar Examiners perceived in Ken Smith's character.)
I just wanted to mention that Sprocket is once again giving a pretty decent account of what is happening in the trial. She has no dog in this fight and seems to value her own personal integrity above all. At least, that's how I have come to view her. While her account needs some editing, it doesn't seem to be overly slanted by bias at this point (although I'm sure she is generally pro-prosecution). It's refreshing to read from a blog that isn't nasty to the core. Kudos to Sprocket.
Sheesh wrote:Can't you feel the love tonight? And you whine about me being unfair....
I find it incredible that some posters want to blame the mother for what happened. One poster wrote that she should be deported? Umm....why????
She is married to a citizen and was here LEGALLY on a green card. Because she has the audacity to hold Brown to his legal obligations???
She is innocent. She lost her beautiful baby. I'm sure every day of her life she wishes she would have not sent her child on a court ordered visit. But,she did, trusting the system. And she and a beautiful innocent child lost.
From what I've read (and I've read a lot about this trial) I wouldn't leave my house plants with Brown. I hope he's enjoying his days in prison. Because, that is where he should be for the rest of his miserable life.
One consolation for him is he won't be worrying about impregnating anyone for a long long time. Thank God
Ted: There are many things to be said here, and alas I don't have the time to say them right now. Ken Smith is just blathering and has NO idea what he is talking about. Perhaps on the weekend I might have time to post a few entries that should knock your socks off.
Are we finally going to see ... Ted Jong-Il's PREPARATION-H BOMB?!? You know, the dud that didn't explode during the last trial?
Ted: So then what? Sarah was lying then, but is telling the truth now? Why should we believe her?
But you ask a good question, Ted -- one that is certainly relevant to this blog. First you drink, and then you don't drink, and then you drink, and then you don't drink ... just listening to you could drive a man to drink! Which is it these days? And what is the story with regard to that magical night with Tull, when you became thick as a brick? First, you implied that you had partaken of the electric beer, as you thought it made you "cool" and part of the "in crowd" who understood their music (the implication was that we did not) and then, when I pointed out that LSD is forever, you backpedaled like Ronnie Lott on an Elway bomb. And then, there is the Mark Fuhrman Moment where you claimed that you never used the words "nigger" or "coon," and John Hattan pointed out on cross that you used them both with some frequency (evidence of this always gets censored at this blog).
Why should ANYONE believe you, Ted? Were you lying then, or ARE YOU LYING NOW?
It would take considerably more than the unsubstantiated word of the compulsive sociopath and self-confessed LSD abuser and violent felon Theodore A. Kaldis to persuade me that Sarah was lying. Memories from ten years back tend to be fuzzy, which is why defense attorneys generally press for delays when they believe it likely that their clients will be found guilty (which appears to be the case with Cam). Also, when a statement is taken out of context, it may sound as though it is a lie when it is in fact entirely consistent with other statements the witness made. One should always withhold judgment on the veracity of a witness' testimony until after redirect.
As CG points out: "Same old, same old. Hum had no problem on re-direct with Sarah during the first trial. His re-direct showed the jury how Geragos used only part of Sarah's notes and left out what she wrote that damaged Cameron." And, as the Wyoming Supreme Court reminds us, “half the truth is often a lie in effect.” Twing v. Schott, 338 P.2d 839, 841 (Wyo. 1959). You will understand if I defer judgment on Sarah's credibility to the people who have to hear the whole story -- the jury.
Ken Smith wrote:
"anony" wrote:But NOT through the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.Ken you made it through law school,
So then what? Sarah was lying then, but is telling the truth now? Why should we believe her?which do you give more credence?It depends. I've seen an awful lot of documents -- even those filed under penalty of perjury -- which contained the baldest of demonstrable lies.
There are many things to be said here, and alas I don't have the time to say them right now. Ken Smith is just blathering and has NO idea what he is talking about. Perhaps on the weekend I might have time to post a few entries that should knock your socks off.
anony: Than you haven't a clue what fair and impartial means. If Nix had showed up for cross examination she would have seen the vast majority of Sarah testimony was contradicted with legal documents. Sarah's testimony consisted of stories which could not be corroborated by witnesses or documentation or anything else. It was only a matter of her word alone. Then in cross examination document after document was produced that contradicted what she said. Ken you made it through law school, which do you give more credence?
It depends. I've seen an awful lot of documents -- even those filed under penalty of perjury -- which contained the baldest of demonstrable lies. When I pointed out instances of perjury by Bob Larson and subornation by his attorney, how far do you think I got? All too often, the contents of a legal document are more "politically correct" than factually accurate.
And as for cross-examination, I know how easy it is for an attorney to take a comment out of context on cross, and how often it happens. Suffice it to say that I am reluctant to accept the word of the wife and brother-in-law of the defendant unquestioningly and especially, when the brother-in-law has been demonstrated to be a compulsive sociopath, and his dutiful sister repeatedly refuses to call him on his lies and hypocrisy. Craig Hum asked those questions with full knowledge of what Harris would ask on cross, and made the professional judgment that Sarah's testimony would be helpful to his case. And who is responsible for the prosecution of acts of perjury? Don't think in a million years that Craig Hum (who has an ethical duty to not put on perjured evidence) is ever going to call Sarah on anything short of the most brazen act of perjury.
Speaking of media coverage, where in the hell is Greta sans Substance? If this case were nearly as bad as you claim, she'd be all over it like white on rice ... and it's not like she wouldn't learn of it from pillow talk.
As for Denise not being there, in case you hadn't noticed, your husband is not Michael Jackson. If this were the trial of someone of that level of prominence, you'd expect Stephen Colbert to be staked out in the freakin' toilet (a skit lampooning the coverage of John Mark Karr). He's just not going to get that kind of media attention; I'm surprised that it even earned AP coverage this time around. IIRC, Denise sat through the first trial, and knows what happened on the first go around. If she made the judgment call that Harris was going to do no more damage than Geragos did, it is hard for me to question that judgment without sufficient evidence to the contrary.
anony: There were many documents that she had previously filed under penalty of perjury, and many contained statements she had made that were contradicted by other official documents. What was displayed by these documents was that Sarah had no problem perjuring herself consistently. The overwhelming theme of the cross was "So your testimony yesterday wasn't really the truth, was it?" as Sarah squirmed.
That is the short definition of any decent cross-examination of a material witness, which is why so many potential witnesses run to ground. If Sarah lies like a Kaldis, the jury will discount her testimony appropriately. That having said, it isn't going to be a big factor in this case. The real questions the jury will wrestle with are the ones being raised by the peanut gallery -- the "why in Sam Hill did he take her there in the first place" questions. To the typical juror, too many unlikely things have to happen for the incident to be deemed an "accident."
So far, you have to give the Breeze props for a good jobThen you haven't a clue what fair and impartial means. If Nix had showed up for cross examination she would have seen the vast majority of Sarah testimony was contradicted with legal documents. Sarah's testimony consisted of stories which could not be corroborated by witnesses or documentation or anything else. It was only a matter of her word alone. Then in cross examination document after document was produced that contradicted what she said. Ken you made it through law school, which do you give more credence?
There were many documents that she had previously filed under penalty of perjury, and many contained statements she had made that were contradicted by other official documents. What was displayed by these documents was that Sarah had no problem perjuring herself consistently. The overwhelming theme of the cross was "So your testimony yesterday wasn't really the truth, was it?" as Sarah squirmed.
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/200...w-
daughter.html
You can't even get your views out there into the marketplace of ideas.
So far, you have to give the Breeze props for a good job. The shot they are using of Cam is a lot more flattering than the stock footage everyone else is using, and the action photo of Hum is hardly of yearbook quality. Cam's comb-over would have made Bob Larson insanely jealous.
Cam sounds as though he fits right in over at the Kaldis Klan: "Key-Marer said she reached out to Brown again in April 1996 after learning she was carrying a baby girl, but he responded by telling her he called immigration to report that she was in the country illegally and would be deported, said Key-Marer, an English native who moved to the United States in 1993." "Vindictive" sounds like it is a family heirloom.
Frankly, if I had English citizenship, I'd be inclined to invoke it to move to a more civilized country. There are worse things than getting kicked out of the U.S. and into a country where health care is a right.
Denise gave opening statements the proper amount of weight -- not that much, if you intend to cover the trial in-depth (as contrasted by the AP pool reporter's piece) -- and covered both sides adequately:
While Hum and Brown's attorney, Pat Harris, both mentioned evidence about the terrain, the physics of the plunge and autopsy findings, they focused mostly on the emotional roller coaster that was the disjointed family's interactions.Your problem is that you are deluded into believing that "fair and balanced" means "the way I see it." Problem is, everyone else sees it a little more like this woman from Chicagoland:
Harris told the jury that the prosecution is basically a mouthpiece for Lauren's grieving mother, and has picked evidence meant to sully his client and make him look like a monster.
While Brown, an avid outdoorsman, may have had some things to learn about parenting, Harris acknowledged, he was a loving father - once he learned for sure that he was, in fact, Lauren's father.
"There's enough blame in this bad relationship to go both ways," Harris said, calling their quarrels a "two-way street."
Odd place for a father to take a 4 yr.old he hardly knows to. You'd think he would be extra careful up there. How many known cases of kids or adults are known to have fallen there in the past? I don't believe this was an accident for one minute.
Ted: Ken, you know squat. And you're probably going to find out squat. Denise Nix was MIA for the cross-examination of Sarah, so all she'll have to write about is what Hum spoon-feeds her. "Sprocket" was there, scribbling furiously, and aloof as ever. God knows what she's going to write.
I expect Sprocket to be the most reliable source of information on the trial. You are too much of a partisan and documented sociopath to be trusted, and whether you are willing to recognize it or not, Denise has more to pay attention to than just your case.
Ted: I could see where Pat Harris was going with some of his questions, but few others could until he gets there. It looks as if there just might be some surprises in this trial as it goes on. One thing's for sure: it's NOT going to be like the last one.
What you perceive as earth-shattering revelations, the jury is going to view as ripples in a pond. You are a South Stands Fan, whose beloved Broncos have never committed a penalty since that grey day back in 1977 when Lyle Alzado grabbed a Raider's face mask. If Pat Harris can't score a few points on Sarah after three years, he isn't trying, and the same will be true with Craig Hum and your cherished witnesses.
This will be a more efficient trial. Everyone knows what the witnesses will testify to, and material changes in anyone's testimony will be savaged. Knowing this, Judge Pastor is probably going to give both sides more latitude. Nonetheless, the basic problems facing Cam remain, and should not be obscured by lawyers' legerdemain. Why did Cam take Lauren to IP, where PP would have served the same purpose? Because he couldn't kill her there and make it look like an accident?
What people are saying on the boards and blogs is what people will be thinking in the jury room ... and if you haven't noticed, what they are saying is not pretty:
take him to the edge of the cliff, snap his neck in just the right place to paralyze him from the neck down, then throw him off the cliff to be crushed by the rocks below. No need to pick him up. Let nature take it's time letting him rot and getting washed out to sea.The jury is going to sit back and contemplate the incredible series of fortuitous "coincidences" which had to take place in order for an accident to have occurred. Pretty much everything else in this case is window-dressing.
Please if anyone deserves the death penalty it is this PIG!!! Rot in Hell Cameron Brown, you coward! Hopefully he sees that little girls face every night in his nightmares and dreams...He will hopefully die a painful and scary death, just like the little girl he murdered!!!
Throw this SOB off the cliff next.
This picture of him in the suit is misleading because you don't see his horns and pitchfork.
[Commenter from RPV] He epitomizes evil and should "burn" for it.
You people that support this monster either 1)hate children and/or 2)don't have any children. Any LOVING parent would know better than to take a 4 year old on a hike up on the cliffs of PV. The are dangerous for an adult! Yes...he is a monster and I hope burns in the afterlife forever! Didn't you see that the prior jury did not vote to aquit? It takes tremendous evidence to prove someone guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt...so, they knew he was responsible...the degree is what the ignorant jury had trouble with.
He`s GUILTY AS HELL. He murdered his Child.
Charlotte S.: I am not familiar with the facts of the case other than a parent, expected to exercise basic standard of care while watching his minor child, is held criminally liable for his daughter's death. Legalities of our justice system makes the parent responsible for the child's death, in some degree which ranges from involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, to 2nd degree murder or 1st degree murder. Clearly, there is no chance in hell that Cam Brown could e.v.e.r. expect to be acquitted and walk away from the case without a conviction for homicide, whether manslaughter or murder. So it is for the jury ... again ... to decide the degree of his conviction. His daughter died on Cam's watch. Cam is responsible for her death. Period.
I've been trying to explain this to Ted for years, but he has a skin as thick as a rhino, and he is himself as thick as a brick.
Our Ted has, shall we say, a unique take on the law. Every law has a baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception, and the Constitution only protects what he needs to have protected. On the other hand, if you are his adversary, you do not have any rights at all. How many people think that it is proper for a judge to sit in judgment of his own case? Ted does ... unless it comes to his baby-killin' brudder-in-law, where even an alleged (by Ted, without credible evidence) propensity to side with the prosecution constitutes a constitutional violation of Brobdignagian proportion.
In some jurisdictions, virtually every fatal auto accident precipitates an involuntary manslaughter investigation. I don't consider this wise, but this is what our law has come to. In this incident, if Cam is not convicted of Murder Two (depraved heart murder), it will be a victory.
Thedore Kaldis, I'm reading your blog in support of Cam Brown and I'm confused. Are you pro or con Mr. Brown? It is my opinion that you are doing him a disfavour by all these long and nagging posts not related to the case. Most people of sound mind would probably hesitate to visit again. Anyone visiting a site as freecambrown.org has a desire to learn factual information about the case. I am not familiar with the facts of the case other than a parent, expected to exercise basic standard of care while watching his minor child, is held criminally liable for his daughter's death. Legalities of our justice system makes the parent responsible for the child's death, in some degree which ranges from involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, to 2nd degree murder or 1st degree murder. Clearly, there is no chance in hell that Cam Brown could e.v.e.r. expect to be acquitted and walk away from the case without a conviction for homicide, whether manslaughter or murder. So it is for the jury ... again ... to decide the degree of his conviction. His daughter died on Cam's watch. Cam is responsible for her death. Period.
It is easy to attack defense attorneys. Defense attorneys have clients who in most cases in fact have committed crimes. I read about a case out of Glendale where Mark Geragos got a defendant Edward Ovasapyan out of jail after being jailed on a first degree murder charge with special circumstances. Afterwards Geragos won a 1,5 million dollar verdict against the Glendale Police Department for framing the guy. That take some guts.
I don't think a reporter should cover a case her lover is prosecuting. Common sense and ethics should come into play. Remember our cheating Mayor of Los Angeles? His reporter girlfriend had to excuse herself from covering stories related to her lover. It is highly inappropriate and the news outlet should be made aware of their bias pillow-talk reporting. Does anyone know if the reporter's boss is aware?
Ken, you know squat. And you're probably going to find out squat. Denise Nix was MIA for the cross-examination of Sarah, so all she'll have to write about is what Hum spoon-feeds her. "Sprocket" was there, scribbling furiously, and aloof as ever. God knows what she's going to write. I could see where Pat Harris was going with some of his questions, but few others could until he gets there. It looks as if there just might be some surprises in this trial as it goes on. One thing's for sure: it's NOT going to be like the last one.
All over the world! This time, it's more brutal:
http://www.news.com.au/
heraldsun...5012748,00.html
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/...ort-
420437.html
http://story.argentinastar.com/i...id/524015/cs/1/
The blogs are predictably savage:
http://boozeworthy.com/2009/07/2...-bad-parenting/
http://startelegram.typepad.com/...ld-
support.html
http://www.mockpaperscissors.com...rs.com/?
p=21523
http://hopelens.wordpress.com/20...7/28/following/
http://sdubsoundoff.blogspot.com...ent-of-
day.html
This one is called "The Hum's Real World News" -- no, I'm not making it up! http://www.neowin.net/forum/
inde...howtopic=803172
The best reporting will probably come from Sprocket.
I have an entire notebook full of notes covering today's testimony and observations. It's doubtful that I will get started on them tonight since I was up quite late last night sewing and I'm exhausted. So expect some delay in my coverage of this case.Best comeback: "'... the prosecution is going to present him (Brown) as a monster; they have to.' The reason they have to is because he is a monster, and to portray him as anything less would be dishonest."
Several members of the mainstream press showed up: South bay area paper, the Daily Breeze sent reporter Denise Nix, who covered the first trial at the Torrance Courthouse in 2006. City News sent a reporter for the morning session and another, Terri Keith for the afternoon. A reporter from the Associated Press and a rep from the Los Angeles Times was also in attendance in the afternoon session, so there might be mainstream articles up on the web by this evening.
The very first line on Google BlogSearch: Related Blogs: Cameron Brown Trial - http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com/
I'll ask again, Ted: Why is this blog invisible to the search engines? If you intend to compete on the stage of ideas, you actually have to show up.
Ken: Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see material changes to the (alleged) crime scene.
Ted: You haven't been out there on the ground, either, you chump. These changes don't show up very well from the air.
Changes requiring a back-hoe loader to effect normally aren't subtle, and for a change to matter, it would have to be material. Ergo, they would show up on a sufficiently detailed aerial photo, which we have access to.
The blog wars have already started. Posting as "impartiality" (kind of like Faux News claiming that they are "fair and balanced"), the Round Mound of Unsound Arguments posted the following missives on the Daily Breeze fora:
This is really biased reporting...maybe the girl slipped off the cliff. Who knows. I do blame the media for always jumping on cases and screaming guilt because it makes a jucier story. The American people deserve fairness not tabloid reporting.
This one is a dead giveaway:
That was by Hayes, Craig Hum's expert...you know it took Hum a lot of time and a lot of money to say that on the stand...Hayes also tried to defy Newton's third law of gravity on the stand...I don't think he's exactly reliable...
The defense's argument, in one sentence:
Just I guess what I want to tell you people is, keep an open mind and heart. Cam was a surfer dude, maybe not the brightest bulb, yes irresponsible, but a killer? Not everyone is guilty.
A lie is the telltale sign of the Kaldis:
This isn't good reporting at all. With all due respect, Ms. Nix is completely biased. Maybe she was sleeping during the defenses opening statement because the only facts in this article are those of the prosecution.
My God...I don't side with either the defense or the prosecution, but I think the readers of this publication deserve to hear both sides of the story. Yes there are two sides to every story and good reporters show both equally.
Here's what happened in court:
If you were in the courtroom, you are either a true crime junkie like Sprocket (who would have posted her views on her blog), or someone with a dog in the hunt.
Another telling tale:
Though this first testimony sounds damning, take it with a grain of salt. Ms. Marer did not like Mr. Brown prior to Lauren's death and is (rightfully so) angry that she died on his watch (either by accident or intent). She is doing anything to make him sound evil. ["Impartiality," my Biblical transport!] Many of her stories were just recently remembered, in fact one was just remembered a few weeks ago (9 years after it would have occured). Her stories have no witnesses. They could have occured, they could have not.
Thank you for that admission, Ted. Cam could have thrown Lauren off of that cliff -- after all, there were no witnesses.
Yes, it really is that obvious. Subtlety has never been one of your strong suits.
The AP took interest, reporting a VERY interesting fact:
Only when he was forced to pay child support did Brown finally see his daughter — about three years after she was born, Hum said, adding he only saw her 12 times on visits before she died.http://www.google.com/ hostednews...S69PUAD99N14R00
I was led to believe (by Team Cam) that the visits were more frequent.
Looks like Denise minimized opening arguments, which is actually defensible. Sarah's testimony is going to be the focus of local readers' attention, and Denise basically got out of the way and let Sarah tell her tale. The photograph they used was a good one (Cam hasn't lost any more of his hair, and looks quite fit). That action shot of Hum isn't exactly flattering, though.
So far, it seems as if Denise has played things perfectly straight, and John and Ken have bigger fish to fry.
CG: Wonder why Cameron didn't?
Ted: Ya reckon it might have had something to do with his lawyer's instructions not to talk about the case?
It didn't stop Sarah, and she would have been the main beneficiary. If you are alleging official negligence, it can hardly hurt your case if you bring that negligence to the attention of authorities and ask that the dangerous condition be remedied.
Ken Smith wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see material changes to the (alleged) crime scene.You haven't been out there on the ground, either, you chump. These changes don't show up very well from the air.
Ken Smith wrote (quoting CG):
Sarah is the one who petitioned to have warning signs, etc put at IP:Ya reckon it might have had something to do with his lawyer's instructions not to talk about the case?
At the February 20, 2001 City Council meeting, Sarah Key-Marer addressed the Council [...]
Wonder why Cameron didn't?
CG: Will be interesting to see what Harris presents about the changes at IP.If there were changes, they should be obvious to all in a comparison of the photos.
Sarah is the one who petitioned to have warning signs, etc put at IP:
At the February 20, 2001 City Council meeting, Sarah Key-Marer addressed the Council regarding the death of her four-year old daughter, Lauren Key, at Inspiration Point on November 8, 2000. She noted that Portuguese Point has fencing along the bluff edge and warning signage, but that Inspiration Point, which is immediately adjacent, is not similarly improved. Ms. Key-Marer requested that the City take measures to prevent future tragedies on City-owned coastal property. In response to the issues raised by Ms. Key-Marer, staff visited each City-owned property along the coastline to determine which ones have bluff tops improved with warning signage and/or guardrail fencing.
Wonder why Cameron didn't?
You can see pictures from 2002 and 2008 here:
www.californiacoastline.org
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see material changes to the (alleged) crime scene. It looks as if they plowed a road alongside a drainage tube close to Portuguese Point (on the face of it, an innocuous and arguably necessary improvement), but that's about it. No changes to IP and its environs, except for the addition of structures to the southeast.
There still doesn't appear as though there is any kind of easy access to IP from the park and playground. PP is closer and affords the same view, but it is fenced off, and an "accident" could not credibly be staged there. Add that to the new evidence and de-emphasize some of the unnecessary (but arguably problematic) stuff, and you still have a pretty good case for murder.
There is so much for Craig Hum to work with here....
We're still trying to figure out the latest nefarious phantom "plot."
Ted: You have absolutely NO idea of what you're talking about. So STFU and GTFOOH.
Since when has that ever stopped you?
Just another one of those Kaldis Rules™, where there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception."
Ted: Moreover, in your case, this doesn't even come into play. The state has a compelling interest in making sure that those who are allowed to practise law are psychologically fit to do so.
But doesn't the accused have rights? Don't the agents of the government have to follow the law? Or is this just another case of Kaldis Rules™, where there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception?"
Ted: I don't want obstinate WHACK-JOBS who are unable to admit defeat becoming lawyers, and pushing losing cases FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing.
Are Judge Arnold and Judge Pastor free to disregard the hide-bound precedent of the United States Supreme Court in managing their courtrooms and rendering their verdicts? You squealed like the stuck pig (well, more like a walrus -- a pig would have a coronary if he had as much body fat as you) you are when Judge Arnold laughed at Geragos' ridiculous 995 motion. Why is there ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law" exception in Kaldis Rules™?
Listen to your own people whine: "Judge Arnold was so manifestly unfair to Cam (for instance, the trial transcript is full dialogue were Judge Arnold stated that he felt all kinds of laws do not apply to this case)." It is one thing to lose fair and square, but quite another to lose in a court where the judge employs the Bill of Rights as a makeshift tampon, and discovers her decision in her nether regions, contained in a five-year old, syphilis-encrusted tampon.
So what if Judge Arnold was unfair? "It's not a good idea to step in front of a barrelling 18-wheeler even if pedestrians lawfully have the right of way." Cam stepped into it, and under your rules, he deserves to get run over. And so what if the LASD blackmails Judge Pastor with a moral turpitude charge? You have to respect power, get on your knees, and expose your sphincter. PREACH IT, BROTHER TED!!! If you are going to get raped anyway, you might as well lie back and enjoy it ... right, Coach Knight?
And don't forget that other set of obstinate WHACK-JOBS who were unable to admit defeat, and who pushed a losing cause FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing. We call them our Founding Fathers.
And then, there is the consummate obstinate WHACK-JOB, who was unable to admit defeat and pushed a hopeless cause FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing. Remember William Wilberforce?
Ken: You counsel that we should fear power,
Ted: I counsel that we should RESPECT power. It's not a good idea to step in front of a barrelling 18-wheeler even if pedestrians lawfully have the right of way.
By that logic, we shouldn't give a damn about Cameron Brown. He stepped in front of "a barrelling 18-wheeler," and got run over. Six-plus years in the slam. The people in power need victims to make examples of, and the guy who kills his daughter through a staggering act of negligence (at best) is not the world's most sympathetic defendant. Craig Hum didn't even leave skid-marks.
Ken Smith wrote:
You counsel that we should fear power,I counsel that we should RESPECT power. It's not a good idea to step in front of a barrelling 18-wheeler even if pedestrians lawfully have the right of way.
"Government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another." Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu.What part of "should be" do you not understand?
Moreover, in your case, this doesn't even come into play. The state has a compelling interest in making sure that those who are allowed to practise law are psychologically fit to do so. I don't want obstinate WHACK-JOBS who are unable to admit defeat becoming lawyers, and pushing losing cases FAR beyond any reasonable prospect of prevailing.
Ken Smith wrote:
Geragoesthemoney: "He's relieved there was no conviction and we're hopeful we can prevail and bring him home," Geragos said, adding he plans to return for a second trial if there is one. "I've never dropped a client on a mistrial and I'm not going to start now. ... The case does not get any better for the prosecution."And the Geragos firm is handling the retrial.
Aaaaahhhhh, memory lane ...And I remember what the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said about Ken Smith.
Ken Smith wrote:
As near as I can tell,Well, you see now, there's your problem. You can't "tell" very "near" at all. You have absolutely NO idea of what you're talking about. So STFU and GTFOOH.
Geragoesthemoney: "He's relieved there was no conviction and we're hopeful we can prevail and bring him home," Geragos said, adding he plans to return for a second trial if there is one. "I've never dropped a client on a mistrial and I'm not going to start now. ... The case does not get any better for the prosecution."
Aaaaahhhhh, memory lane....
anony: For more than the last year that Cam was incarcerated, Cam was forced to waive his right to a speedy trial, because he was told that if he did not consent, his case would go back to Judge Arnold, and since Judge Arnold was so manifestly unfair to Cam (for instance, the trial transcript is full dialogue were Judge Arnold stated that he felt all kinds of laws do not apply to this case) Cam really had no other choice but to consent.
Every jurisdiction has a procedural remedy for judicial bias; the federal remedy is 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 (allegations of actual bias) and 455 (appearance of bias). IIRC, California has a provision enabling a defendant to exercise one peremptory challenge against a judge, though it has to be exercised early (If Geragos knew that Arnold was a pro-State asshole -- that's the benefit of having local counsel -- why wasn't it?) On top of that, there is the all-purpose remedy of habeas corpus. Whenever you complain about alleged unfairness -- never mind that your brother has exactly no problem with a judge deciding a case wherein she is the defendant in tort (well, perhaps he would do so in private, but the average Christian is a sociopath, and Ted would rather gnaw his arm off than confess that I have been treated unfairly) -- I keep asking myself why an attorney with the putative stature of Mark Geragos hasn't availed himself of these remedies.
anony: As this was going on, the top of Inspiration Point was changed drastically - so much so that it is very scary now. You can't even access the place where Cam and Lauren were now. Yet there will still be a jury view of the new Inspiration Point. There were also changes made to the path that Cam and Lauren took that day. Some of those changes require a dump truck and a front end loader to accomplish. And there is no reasonable explanation for why such changes should have been made to public lands. But we're just paranoid, aren't we Ken?
And here, I thought we were playing by Kaldis Rules™: One can never question the motives of public officials (and particularly, state Bar officials), no matter how objectively questionable they are on their face. This is what infuriates me about you two, and your brother in particular: If we used the same rules of procedure to judge Cam that Ted has invoked to excoriate me, Cam would have been hanging from a noose a long time ago. Why is there ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception" to those rules?
Assuming that what you claim is true and I am Cam's defense counsel, I am smiling from ear to ear. If material changes to the alleged crime scene were made, they had to be authorized and justified, and the particulars become relevant to his defense. They get to show the purported crime scene to the jury, and you get to show that they changed the crime scene for no good reason. This is a bad thing?!?
Let me play devil's advocate here. Life just doesn't stop for a murder (except, obviously, for those directly affected). The girders of the WTC were melted down and made into Toyotas. If the DPW decided that improvements to the site were in order, approval had to go through a process that leaves a paper trail.
Defense counsel has an array of remedies. First and foremost, the fact that you know about this means that you were entitled to discovery on this point. Second, you had a right to object to the field trip in a motion in limine, and if the changes were such that to show the purported crime scene to the jury would be unfair or prejudicial, a scrupulously fair judge (i.o.w., the one you have been waiting years for) would have denied the prosecution's request. Third, even if the field trip was approved (iirc, Harris' motion was denied), you get to cast all sorts of aspersions upon the State's actions.
In this case, the State did you a favor and yes, you probably are being paranoid. But remember that just 'cuz you're paranoid doesn't mean that they ain't out to get you....
And even if you have reason to be paranoid, so what? Under Kaldis Rules™, power will do what it will do. You have no right to object; all you can do is try to keep a low profile and hope that you don't become a target. Well, like it or not, Cam became a target -- we have to demonstrate that there are laws in our society, even if public officials are entirely immune from prosecution -- and under Kaldis Rules™, sacrificial lambs do tend to get slaughtered. There is nothing that we can do about it, and more importantly, nothing that we should do about it:
Ted: I counsel that you should maintain a low profile while you are without power, instead of making yourself a target. If you would have done so while you were a law student, you would be a lawyer today."But he's my baby-killin' brudder-in-law! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!" As Ted would say, life is unfair.
Have either of you read Ayn Rand? Hobbes' Leviathan? Are you familiar with the Randian concept of the "sanction of the victim"? Forgive me if I have precisely zero sympathy for hypocrites.
In a republic, we have certain laws. One of those laws involves the power of the State to detain murder suspects pending a trial on the merits. Another is the so-called "speedy trial" provision, which forces the State to commence prosecution within 180 days, unless this right is waived by the defendant.For more than the last year that Cam was incarcerated, Cam was forced to waive his right to a speedy trial, because he was told that if he did not consent, his case would go back to Judge Arnold, and since Judge Arnold was so manifestly unfair to Cam (for instance, the trial transcript is full dialogue were Judge Arnold stated that he felt all kinds of laws do not apply to this case) Cam really had no other choice but to consent.
As near as I can tell, the State of California followed the law permitting it to detain Cam prior to trial
As this was going on, the top of Inspiration Point was changed drastically - so much so that it is very scary now. You can't even access the place where Cam and Lauren were now. Yet there will still be a jury view of the new Inspiration Point. There were also changes made to the path that Cam and Lauren took that day. Some of those changes require a dump truck and a front end loader to accomplish. And there is no reasonable explanation for why such changes should have been made to public lands. But we're just paranoid, aren't we Ken?
Ken: You counsel that we should all drop our drawers and expose our sphincters to people in power.
Ted: No. I counsel that you should maintain a low profile while you are without power, instead of making yourself a target.
And the salient distinction is? You counsel that we should fear power, and adjust our conduct accordingly. In short, that we should drop our drawers and expose our sphincters to our betters like Craig Hum and Danny Smith.
"Government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another." Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu.
Ibi jus, ubi remedium. Where there is law, there is a remedy for its invasion. If we are to be “a government of laws, not men,” as John Adams put it, the law must hold someone accountable for tortious actions willfully committed by agents of the government.
Ken: I honestly don't care whether Cam is guilty.
Ted: In other words, if Cameron is indeed NOT GUILTY of the crime with which he has been charged, Ken really DOESN'T CARE that Cameron has been UNJUSTLY INCARCERATED all this time.
I am impressed, and not in a positive way. Once again, you prove that, while ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.
In a republic, we have certain laws. One of those laws involves the power of the State to detain murder suspects pending a trial on the merits. Another is the so-called "speedy trial" provision, which forces the State to commence prosecution within 180 days, unless this right is waived by the defendant.
As near as I can tell, the State of California followed the law permitting it to detain Cam prior to trial. Do I agree with this law? No. I consider it far too solicitous of the State's discretion, and manifestly unfair to the criminal defendant (who is presumed innocent in our legal system). Do I have a say in that? No. I have not been a Californian for the better part of twenty years.
As near as I can tell, Cam Brown repeatedly waived his right to a speedy trial -- in part, because he was judge-shopping. Did he have a right to do so? Yes. Are there costs associated with that strategy? Yes -- most notably, materially extending his stay in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California.
"Justice" is the concept that like situations be treated alike. If it is lawful and therefore just for the State to incarcerate a murder suspect pending a trial on the merits, how then can it be said that Cam has been incarcerated unjustly? And if Cam held the proverbial key to the jailhouse door, by virtue of the fact that he was entitled to a speedy trial, how can I blame the State for his failure to exercise that right?
Whether Cam is innocent or guilty, he has certain rights. These, the State must respect for us to remain as a nation of laws. Where those rights are violated and it has been shown that those rights have been violated, I have objected and will continue to object. “No man is an island … for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” John Donne, Meditation XVII, in Devotions on Emergent Occasions (1623). Conversely, when the State acts within its authority, I have no right to object, except perhaps to observe that the law is an ass.
To me, it makes no difference whether Matthew Hale or Richard Fine is in the cross-hairs. This is what you are simply too dense to grasp, Ted.
Ken Smith wrote:
You counsel that we should all drop our drawers and expose our sphincters to people in power.No. I counsel that you should maintain a low profile while you are without power, instead of making yourself a target. If you would have done so while you were a law student, you would be a lawyer today.
Ken Smith wrote:
I honestly don't care whether Cam is guilty.In other words, if Cameron is indeed NOT GUILTY of the crime with which he has been charged, Ken really DOESN'T CARE that Cameron has been UNJUSTLY INCARCERATED all this time. And so all the rest of Ken's equivocation and noble-sounding blather really DOESN'T MATTER. THAT is the nature of the character of Ken Smith. And, moreover he said it himself. Because in the final analysis, Ken Smith really doesn't care about anyone except Ken Smith.
anony: In that case Dennis Nix's work should match the trail transcript. But here Nix is woefully deficient!
Since I don't have the trial transcript, I am in no position to judge the verity of that specific charge, but as a general rule, newspaper reporters are not court reporters and don't hang on every word. They're "big picture" people, and more often than not, what they paint is a caricature. From what I understand of the case, Denise Nix's work is better than most, but we are admittedly starting from a very low base point.
anony: Mens Central jail is not a prison, it is a county jail. If there is a library, it is hidden in a corner, somewhere, but it is not available to inmates. Cam doesn't even get the books that people send him, his mail, the newspaper, or any other reading material.
I had half a mind to send him a surfing calendar last time I was in Aus, but decided against it because Ted would have construed it as a taunt. Good thing I didn't.
anony: Remember, Richard Fine isn't even allowed paper and pencil (so he can't write any briefs). He is in jail indefinitely, with no hearings coming up, no court dates. He is just sitting in jail with no relief in sight, and without being charged with a crime - as best as I can tell.
If what you say is true, it is as appalling as it is unconstitutional. It's just wrong, no matter who is on the business end of government conduct. As I have written in another brief:
It is said that the acid test of a judicial system is in how it treats the unlovely, and few are more deserving of that sobriquet than famed white supremacist Matthew Hale. He wasn’t considered dangerous because he was a raving lunatic but rather, because he was well-spoken, and publicly eschewed violence. Pontifex, Esq?, Intelligence Report, Southern Poverty Law Center (Spring, 1999), available at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/i...cle.jsp? aid=354. Hale was convicted of ordering the murder of Judge Joan Lefkow in 2004, in a spectacle that bore the distinctive fragrance of a political hit:The difference between me and your brother is that my standards are relentlessly consistent, regardless of whether the person who sits in the cross-hairs is a Richard Fine or a Matthew Hale. I honestly don't care whether Cam is guilty.White supremacist Matthew Hale's defense rested in minutes Tuesday after calling not one witness to the stand in Hale's murder solicitation trial.Natasha Korecki, Hale Defense Rests After Calling No Witnesses - His Attorney Calls Government Case 'Weak', Chicago Sun-Times, May 18, 2004, at 18.
Hale's attorney, Thomas Durkin, asked for an acquittal, saying the prosecution's evidence "wouldn't even pass muster" in a simple drug case.
"This is the weakest case I've ever seen the government present," Durkin said.Ultimately the debate came down to whether it was solicitation or entrapment on Evola's part, according to the jurors.Matt O'Connor, Hale Guilty On 4 Counts - Jurors Say E-mail, Tapes Sealed Verdict In Plot To Kill Judge, Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004, at 1.
Hale is "a very intelligent man," one juror said. "This is a man who passed the bar exam. No one could make him say something he didn't want to. During those conversations, he never said no" to killing Lefkow.
Judges have a pronounced tendency to, as Judge Kane has admitted, watch each other’s back; needless to say, they threw the book at him. Moreover, despite the trial judge’s recommendation that he serve his sentence close to his family in Pekin, Illinois, our Bureau of Prisons threw him in America’s most notorious lockup -- Colorado’s Supermax -- for forty years. Natasha Korecki, Hale Held With Worst of Worst: White Supremacist At Supermax Federal Prison In Colorado, Chicago Sun-Times, April 28, 2005, at 8.
Today, Hale lives the life of a political prisoner, having been singled out for what the Bureau euphemistically describes as “special administrative measures” or SAMs. Id. He lives in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, cannot speak to the media, is only allowed to read a thirty-day old copy of U.S.A. Today, and was even barred from speaking to his parents for a year because they passed along a benign message from him to the media. Id. Hale filed suit challenging the constitutionality of this restriction on his First Amendment rights,15 relying on established Tenth Circuit precedent involving an inmate who had arranged an interview with a tabloid TV show:Denying media access to conduct face-to-face interviews with inmates is constitutional as long as alternative means for communicating with the media are available. Pell, 417 U.S. at 827-28; Saxbe, 417 U.S. at 850. Here, Mr. Johnson is free to communicate with Hard Copy through the mail and telephone, and indeed he has done so. Consequently, Mr. Johnson's First Amendment rights were not violated.Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 1993.C10.40494, ¶ 16 (10th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).
One would assume that if the Tenth Circuit says -- citing Supreme Court precedent directly on point -- that even prison inmates have a constitutional right to communicate with the media, then the defendants’ action in his case violated that clearly established constitutional right, and that he is entitled to damages. But Defendant Blackburn, whose statutory duty it is to review the recommendations of the magistrates working under his direction, found that “Plaintiff's objections are imponderous and without merit.” Order, Hale v. Ashcroft, supra.
Robert Blackburn has been described as a “wordslinger” who “gargles dictionaries during his morning toilet,” “takes a Buckley-esque delight in inflicting Elizabethan and Latinate terms on bewildered combatants” and, “[c]ontrary to the advice of great writers from Twain to Orwell, [] never uses a familiar word where a compound obscurity will do.” Alan Prendergast, Blackburned, Westword, (Dec. 11, 2007), at http://www.westword.com/2007-12-...s/blackburned/ 2. One presumes, therefore, that whenever he writes such florid language, he actually means what he writes. And if you were to examine the actual objections, you would expect to find that they were indeed “imponderous and without merit.” By contrast, Hale stated, in pertinent part:It is also, specifically, clearly established law that the opening of outgoing court correspondence violates the First Amendment. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 582 (10th Cir. 1980). Likewise, it is clearly established law that prohibiting inmates from having any contact with the news media violates the First Amendment. Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 692 (10th Cir. 1993).Pl’s Obj. to Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Regarding Def. Wiley’s Mot. To Dismiss Money Damages Claims [Dkt. # 77], Hale v. Ashcroft (filed Aug. 29, 2008 ) at 4-5, supra.
The issue is in this case is not the “SAMs” as some kind of aloof, mystical entity but rather the rights violated by their imposition. These rights have already been adjudicated numerous times and thus there exists “clearly established law.”
The right of access to the media is clearly established, and if your outgoing correspondence is read and censored, it would as a practical matter impossible for you to write anything that would even begin to relate to a legitimate penological interest. Furthermore, it is difficult to conceive of how Hale’s statement condemning the murder of Judge Lefkow‘s family given to the news media by his mother, Jodi Wilgoren, Man in Plot to Kill Judge Says Slayings Are 'Heinous', N.Y. Times, Mar. 4, 2005, is the kind of statement you want excised from the realm of public discourse. And at the very least, it is impossible to even conceive of how depriving Hale of access to any information other than a thirty-day-old copy of U.S.A. Today could colorably be related to a legitimate penological interest, or that prison officials would not be expected to know that. While his civil rights claims may or may not be upheld, they certainly are not “imponderous and without merit.”
"reporting" (basically, "he said X; she said not X")In that case Dennis Nix's work should match the trail transcript. But here Nix is woefully deficient!
Virtually every prison has a library, because it has to have one as a matter of law; constitutionally, prisoners cannot be deprived of the right of access to legal texts.Mens Central jail is not a prison, it is a county jail. If there is a library, it is hidden in a corner, somewhere, but it is not available to inmates. Cam doesn't even get the books that people send him, his mail, the newspaper, or any other reading material.
Remember, Richard Fine isn't even allowed paper and pencil (so he can't write any briefs). He is in jail indefinitely, with no hearings coming up, no court dates. He is just sitting in jail with no relief in sight, and without being charged with a crime - as best as I can tell.
Ken: (2) a sense of honor, decency, and fairness,
Ted: And I would submit that these are qualities which you YOURSELF lack (which is most likely, at least in part, the reason why the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board issued the request of you that they did).
Based on what facts? Your overwhelming penchant for baseless and tendentious speculation is well-known and just as easily documented -- remember how you speculated that Craig Hum took this case to enhance his resume for his phantom run for D.A., or that the city fathers of RPV had somehow encouraged the LASD to go after Cam to forestall liability in tort, when (1) Cam's lawsuit had already been dismissed with prejudice, and (2) they were members of a Lloyd's-like insurance pool which limited their liability to low five-figures?
You have never had anything that even looks like a moral compass, even when you participated in that mugging of that gay guy. You pull "facts" out of your sphincter as easily as did Baghdad Bob, and to equal effect.
Ted: In which case, the question now becomes: How would YOU know?
Differing weights and measures has become your watchword. If we were to use the standards you have used to excoriate me, Cam would have been found hanging from a noose five years ago. That you are devoid of those character traits is an objective test, obvious to anyone who cares to examine the evidence.
Ken: and (3) an I.Q. exceeding room temperature.
Ted: I.Q. by itself, alas, doesn't make one wise. Bill Buckley once noted that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2,000 members of the faculty of Harvard (one of whom is lately in the news, as it transpires).
But your glaring lack of same renders it impossible for you to possess it, Trig van Kaldis. While ignorance is curable, stupid is forever ... and if you were even the slightest bit capable of being educable, you should have figured it out by now. If you would whine like a stuck pig if Danny Smith were asked to preside over Cam's murder trial, you should find the singular spectacle of Mary Mullarkey presiding over a tort case against Mary Mullarkey appalling.
Again, one wonders what "wisdom" you have acquired -- especially, after years of hard drinking, amyl nitrate use in gay bookstores, and abuse of LSD (implied, and then denied) have ravaged what few synapses you were born with. You counsel that we should all drop our drawers and expose our sphincters to people in power. This is "wisdom?"
I will say it again: I would be ashamed to admit that you and I are of the same species, save for the fact that you are obviously a sub-human low-brow. How can anyone be so butt-ugly and still be counted as human?
Ted: All they need do is look at your interaction with the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, and then look at your MANY legal actions (and their result) in response to that interaction. (Links furnished upon request.)Are you really that blindingly stupid, Ted? Every time you open your proverbial pie-hole, you compel me to revise my estimate of your intelligence downward.
Ken: To judge my conduct fairly, one must have what you do not possess: (1) a grounding in the law sufficient to understand the issues being raised,
Ted: I would submit that Judge Edward Nottingham, Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless, the jurists of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and of the Colorado Supreme Court DO indeed have such a background.
Remember: Judges have 'skin in the game'. As Frederick Douglass put it:
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.What I am doing is the functional equivalent of the Iranian people, protesting in the street because their votes were not counted and the "election" was rigged. While "the law" is not always scrupulously objective -- certain statutes can be interpreted several ways, and there are gradations -- when a judge places his or her hands on the scales of justice for impure ends, it is usually obvious. By way of example, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), SCOTUS made the following salient observations:
[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has "a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest" in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that "[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." …Caperton, slip op. at 6, 16 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level. …
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal.
It is difficult to imagine any fact situation any more extraordinary or extreme than a judge deciding an appeal in a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, at least sixteen non-conflicted judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal is required by statute to be heard by another court: the judicially noticeable facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055). Taken together, the rule of law precipitated from these cases is that, if you have enough money to afford the services of former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a state judge must recuse where "the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level," Caperton, slip op. at 16 … but if you are a man of modest means, forced to approach our courts in propria persona out of practical necessity, the Due Process Clause will not even afford you the barest protection of "the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has ‘a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest’ in a case." Id., slip op. at 6 (citation omitted).
Now, think about that for even half a minute. Any “rule of law” which depends in material part on one’s station in life (or, who you know) is not deserving of the appellation. (It's that promise of "equal justice under law" etched onto the frieze of the Supreme Court building.) The only rational (the concept of "rationality" is utterly foreign to you) conclusion is that the Supreme Court's rule is the right one (fwiw, there are about forty cases saying the same thing), and that the lower courts in question have ignored the Court's dictates.
Everyone who doesn't have skin in the game -- your relentless personal vendetta against me, precipitated by our religious differences, blinds you to reason -- is going to look at the spectacle of Smith v. Mullarkey and admit that it is an appalling abuse of the judicial power. You, on the other hand, having lost so many arguments to me that we have both lost count, would rather cut your nuts off (as you will recall, you have said something to that effect) than have to admit that you have lost again. And that brings us to the subject of ethics, or more accurately, your complete lack thereof [to be continued presently].
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:I would submit that Judge Edward Nottingham, Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless, the jurists of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and of the Colorado Supreme Court DO indeed have such a background.All they need do is look at your interaction with the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, and then look at your MANY legal actions (and their result) in response to that interaction. (Links furnished upon request.)To judge my conduct fairly, one must have what you do not possess: (1) a grounding in the law sufficient to understand the issues being raised,
(2) a sense of honor, decency, and fairness,And I would submit that these are qualities which you YOURSELF lack (which is most likely, at least in part, the reason why the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board issued the request of you that they did). In which case, the question now becomes: How would YOU know?
and (3) an I.Q. exceeding room temperature.I.Q. by itself, alas, doesn't make one wise. Bill Buckley once noted that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2,000 members of the faculty of Harvard (one of whom is lately in the news, as it transpires).
Further to the Scott Drexel playbook. During a continued trial I sufferred multiple fractures from a fall that required surgical repairs, hospitalization and bed confinement so I obtained a Declaration from a physician aware of these facts and filed it with a motion to continue in the routine manner in such events. Unknown to me, the Deputy trial counsel, Erin Joice secretly issued a subpoena for the personal appearance in court of my physcian over a two week span and caused a week of stalking, trespassing and harassment by a State Bar Investigator of my physcian at his home, office and hospital. Despite no personal service, Erin Joyce,trial counsel, caused to be prepared a false Declaration of personal service that only surfaced when a Motion to Quash was filed by my physcian and disclosed that the Declaration of Service was on its face totally illegal. The court agreed and granted the Motion to Quash but no sanctions or attorney fees and no redress by a tort action for abuse of process. If I need a Declaration from my physcian what would be your response? and his response? Who could blame him? This is an example of Nifong-Drexel protecting the public.http://federalism.typepad.com/ cr...l.html#comments
By your own rules, if Cam Brown goes down, it's no loss, Ted. Criminal actions by our authorities happen every day in this country, and you don't seem to care unless it is your baby-killin' brudder-in-law (yes, Cam killed Lauren by his actions, even if it isn't ultimately deemed to be murder) who is in their sights. You consistently counsel that we should all drop our drawers and expose our sphincters, acknowledging their superiority -- why don't you do everyone a favor and advise Cam to plead out to Murder Two?
You disgust me -- I'm ashamed to have to admit that we are even of the same species.
Ted: Ken, I say that you're STILL a WHACK-JOB! And people don't need me to tell them to come to that conclusion.
Practicing Attorney: "A Daniel, I say, a Daniel!" Your talents would at one and the same time be well spent and wasted as a member of our benighted profession, Ken. Thank you for enlightening her, to the extent she is educable.
Funny how those who know always disagree with you, Ted.
Ted: All they need do is look at your interaction with the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, and then look at your MANY legal actions (and their result) in response to that interaction. (Links furnished upon request.)
To judge my conduct fairly, one must have what you do not possess: (1) a grounding in the law sufficient to understand the issues being raised, (2) a sense of honor, decency, and fairness, and (3) an I.Q. exceeding room temperature.
Ken, I say that you're STILL a WHACK-JOB! And people don't need me to tell them to come to that conclusion. All they need do is look at your interaction with the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, and then look at your MANY legal actions (and their result) in response to that interaction. (Links furnished upon request.)
One more thing, Ted: Just remember that yours is a relatively remote corner of cyberspace, that most people couldn't find on a bet. Other blogs are more easily found. You don't have censorship power over the Daily Breeze site and especially, John and Ken. You are going to have to come to grips with rational critiques of your irrational and tendentious views.
Sure, you can censor here ... but what does that say about your confidence in your arguments, Chairman Cow?
Ted: Ken, in my estimation, you are a veritable WHACK-JOB!
Another ad hominem ... watta shock! Ted, in my estimation -- one which is shared by virtually everyone on USENET who has had the singular misfortune of having encountered you -- you are a certifiable sociopath and incorrigible hypocrite.
Ted: You write with effusive praise about accounts the substance of which you have NO first-hand knowledge about.
First and foremost, my judgment is based, in no small part, on the claims you have made, both here and on USENET. Second, that alleged disability has not prevented you from libeling me for the past decade. Differing weights and measures -- whereas the god of the Bible detests them both, you and your god swear by them. Third, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Ted: And you pretend to speak authoritatively about the subject of these accounts, while at the same time acknowledging that their writers don't have the time or resources to cover their subject matter comprehensively.
Based primarily on your hysterical complaints, other reports, and documentation you and others have provided, and in light of my own rather extensive experience in dealing with reporters in the MSM, I can fairly judge the performance of Denise Nix. Denise has done a remarkably good job under the circumstances, when compared to the work of her colleagues. By stark contrast, you are fundamentally incapable of judging her fairly. You wouldn't be satisfied with anything short of a reporter serving as a mouthpiece for the paranoid conspiracy theories that even you shy away from when challenged, and displaying unbridled umbrage at ticky-tack procedural fouls that occur in every courtroom in Los Angeles on a daily basis. In short, you are not satisfied with anyone who doesn't see the world through your electric-beer-fogged rose-colored glasses.
The fundamental problem -- one which has been proven over and over and over again -- is that you are a compulsive liar. Even Geragoesthemoney has zero tolerance for your pathological and persistent insanity, as evidenced by his failure to file a habeas action in federal court.
Ted: Consequently, we can come to no other conclusion than that you are a mendacious prevaricator.
By the standard you use to judge me, Cam would have been found hanging from a noose four or five years ago.
Ted: Moreover, here is how someone might respond to my comments about your blatherings: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ka...dis/
Comment.mp3
How the rational person would respond to your comments about my reasoned arguments -- including the ones you dishonestly censor on the facile ground that you don't like their content and cannot respond rationally: "ROTFLMAO!!!!!"
Ted: Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, as the case may be), I don't have time to waste on responding to the BOLLOCKS that you post.
What colossally self-serving bovine excrement! You can let the statements stand without response. If you're really short on time, you can even forego the dishonest editing.
Ted: Now STFU and GTFOOH.
The audio you are looking for is at [link broken]
Edited By Siteowner
Ken, in my estimation, you are a veritable WHACK-JOB! You write with effusive praise about accounts the substance of which you have NO first-hand knowledge about. And you pretend to speak authoritatively about the subject of these accounts, while at the same time acknowledging that their writers don't have the time or resources to cover their subject matter comprehensively. Consequently, we can come to no other conclusion than that you are a mendacious prevaricator.
Moreover, here is how someone might respond to my comments about your blatherings: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ka...dis/
Comment.mp3
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, as the case may be), I don't have time to waste on responding to the BOLLOCKS that you post. Now STFU and GTFOOH.
Honesty in the courtroom ... how refreshing!
The altercation occurred 6:20 p.m. Thursday when Brennan was speaking.http://www.statebillnews.com/?p=1115
Here’s what followed:
* Ikeler got up from his chair and approached the podium to make an objection. On the first day of the trial, Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero instructed Ikeler not to do this.
* Brennan, who had several times expressed his contempt for Ikeler, was pointing with his arm outstretched to his side when Ikeler approached him from behind. Brennan’s arm effectively barred Ikeler from walking any further. Brennan’s arm and Ikeler’s chest then came into contact, after which it appeared that Brennan pushed Ikeler back.
* Brennan next turned to face Ikeler, glaring intently at him for several seconds, then pointing his finger and shaking his head.
* Lucero called for order. “This is not trial by combat,” he said.
* Brennan then told the hearing panel that Ikeler had deliberately provoked him by violating Lucero’s order not to approach the podium when making objections. Brennan also referred to Ikeler as a “piece of sh-t.”
After the altercation, OARC staff in the audience summoned security personnel, who monitored the remainder of the trial.
In an e-mail to Law Week, Brennan gave his side of the story: “I did not shove Ikeler, but put out my hand as I faced the bench and he approached from behind, against which he pushed unsuccessfully. He assaulted me, in violation of repeated court orders that he stay away from me. He did so to provoke me. I then turned after he backed off, and told him to get away from me.”
He's right. Ikeler is a little piece of shit.
Bribegate update:
On July 13, 2009 a Superior Court hearing was held on the Judicial Watch motion for Injunctive Relief in the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case BC351286, a taxpayers lawsuit where in October 2008, the Fourth Appellate Court District decision found of Los Angeles County payments to the Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were illegal. The decision was upheld by the California Supreme Court when a petition for rehearing was denied to the Los Angeles Superior Court who had hired Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, one of the most powerful and influential legal firms in the country. ...http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Bl...et/Blogs/ 73.php
Claiming that the emergency provision inserted into the February 11, 2009 Budget Bill, known as SBX 2 11 had retroactively made the County’s payments to the Judges legal, it also provided for Judicial criminal immunity from prosecution and liability and to the County officials involved in the transfer of what has been estimated to be almost $300 million dollars over the past twenty years.
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
Ted: In Ken Smith's world
When we do a legal story at KnowYourCourts.com, we do it right. We include documents filed with the court, so that anyone can check our work. Philosophically, we believe in letting the reader make up his or her own mind. But as a practical matter, that kind of documentation just isn't going to be found on a regular basis in the traditional media. If this were Michael Jackson, it would be different....
We honestly wish we could get better work out of the Fourth Estate, and do everything we can to facilitate their building on our work. The problem we face is grave -- to the point of threatening the very fabric of our Republic -- and doesn't begin or end with Cam Brown. You have a severe case of tunnel-vision (and are incorrigibly selfish), Ted. Get your fat head out (okay, it may be stuck) and see the bigger picture....
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
Ted: In Ken Smith's world, receiving statements from an apparently unscrupulous prosecutor, and then reprinting those statements verbatim -- without even bothering to try to get a statement from the other side, constitutes "pretty good" reporting.
Compared to what I have seen -- and let's not forget the consistently dishonest editorial policy of this blog, which pretends to be a news source, albeit tragically amateurish -- it is exemplary. This kind of press conference is timed with reporters' deadlines in mind; the statement of a prosecutor with respect to a potentially high-profile case is "news," in and of itself. It is rare that the reporter has enough time to contact the other side before going to press; the average reader knows that a prosecutor's prattlings are not the final word.
As for the "unscrupulous" prosecutor, in the delusional, electric-beer-enhanced world of Theodore A. Kaldis, everybody this side of Vladimir Putin is a part of the conspiracy that Theodore refuses to call a conspiracy. Think back to Darden and Clark. I haven't seen any unusual fouls -- lawyers for the government "cross the line" every day, knowing that nothing will ever come of it -- committed by Hum. The practice of law has coarsened in the past thirty years; what is now "normal" would never have been countenanced back then. It is wrong by my metric, but I have a higher standard than "whatever you can get away with." By stark contrast, you are amoral (also, read "slimy") enough to fit in nicely.
As has been said, Ted, you are known to consistently ignore even judicially noticeable facts and incorrigible inferences from hide-bound SCOTUS precedent when it serves your selfish purposes; you can hardly have cause for complaint if Craig Hum should decide to behave like a Kaldis.
Denise Nix has done her job, at a level easily exceeding that of our local yokels. No, this isn't Greta sans Substance on Caylee, Natalee, JonBenet, Chandra, or [substitute pretty white girl here], but she doesn't have Greta's resources or legal training at her disposal. Speaking of which, if Hum's actions in this prosecution are nearly as outlandish as you claim, why isn't Greta all over this case, Ted? It's not like it wouldn't be pillow talk....
Ken: Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
anony: Not if you care about some modicum of accuracy!!
First and foremost, you don't know how atrocious legal reporting is, on average. Second, as Ted is consistently delusional -- he won't even accept judicially noticeable facts that don't go his way -- and you have an awful lot of 'skin in the game' (after all, unless I miss my guess, we are talking about your husband here), you will understand if I don't regard your evaluation of Denise's work as entirely objective.
There is a vast gulf between "reporting" (basically, "he said X; she said not X") and "investigative reporting" (trying to figure out what X is), as evidenced by the missing jail library. Virtually every prison has a library, because it has to have one as a matter of law; constitutionally, prisoners cannot be deprived of the right of access to legal texts. That includes Supermax here in Florence, as was evidenced by white supremacist Matthew Hale's recent litigation here in the District of Colorado.
Based on that fact alone -- if the Hotel California didn't have a library, it would be more of a story than you think -- Denise Nix is justified in not having a particularly high degree of skepticism when L.A.S.D. officials claimed that Cam had a hardcover book in his room. As a reporter is interested in the "he said, she said" aspects of a story, getting that "fact" wrong (if the fact of the existence of a prison library is wrong, which would honestly astound me; you will understand my healthy skepticism, as it relates to your claim) is hardly unremarkable or necessarily a failure of care on her part.
What I find problematic is where reporters only talk to one side in a controversy when they have reasonable access, as evidenced by recent reporting on Mark Brennan's case before our state's disciplinary board. In one instance, Christianity Today simply made up a "quote" from me without even bothering to talk with me (and you wonder why I have grown to despise evangelical Christians?) That is bad reporting. Denise is largely hamstrung when writing about incidents like the shiv, because defense attorneys shouldn't say anything and defendants in criminal cases should say less.
They've given Denise the time to do the job; iirc, by contrast, the Times guy showed up for one day, and the AP pool reporter didn't show at all. Her pieces have been succinct and for the most part accurate; remember that in the traditional print media, brevity is next to godliness. Unless we are talking about Michael Jackson, expecting more is a very big "ask" these days.
Now, let's compare her work with the editorial policy of this blog (which is an attempt at reporting the news, however amateurish). Actively censoring dissenting views on the basis of content? He who lives in a glass house should not be in the habit of throwing stones....
Ken Smith wrote:
Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.In Ken Smith's world, receiving statements from an apparently unscrupulous prosecutor, and then reprinting those statements verbatim -- without even bothering to try to get a statement from the other side, constitutes "pretty good" reporting.
Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.Not if you care about some modicum of accuracy!!
Ted: You ain't right.
Why? Because Ted's god said so while he was passing a difficult stool on the throne? Argue the point, if you can (we know that you can't).
Ted: The Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was on to you.
Ted: [Ken's pointless abusive blather elided ...]
It's amazing how Ted's pointless abusive blather and ad hominem arguments are never elided....
Ken: Competent reporters like Greg Palast and Sy Hersh are a dying breed.
Ted: Psuh. Get real. (Or maybe that's a little too much to ask from you.)
Reporters will tell you themselves (KnowYourCOurts is a regular source of story leads) that their craft has suffered greatly, mostly due to the fact that they don't have resources sufficient to follow their leads. Who has the resources to do another Juice v. Justice? Not the Times (the reporters said so). Certainly, not the Boston Globe. Legal reporting in particular has devolved into punditry, as the few reporters who possess the requisite training to understand the evidence are mere commentators. Denise Nix's reporting has been pretty damn good, when you consider the size of the paper.
Ted: [Ken's pointless abusive blather elided ...]
Why don't you let your readers decide whether it is "pointless abusive blather" or not? Are you so afraid that they will disagree that you can't take that chance?
They can find the uncensored post at [censored], and make up their own mind. I reiterate:
[censored]
You can't even try to refute me without looking the consummate fool, and we both know it.
Edited By Siteowner
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:You ain't right. The Colorado Bar Examiners' Board was on to you.Ken, you're incorrigible.Why should I be "corrected," when I am right and we both know it?
Ken Smith wrote:
Competent reporters like Greg Palast and Sy Hersh are a dying breed.Psuh. Get real. (Or maybe that's a little too much to ask from you.)
Ken (as censored by Ted): No, Ted is just a [censored], who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at [censored]
Markos at Daily Kos has likewise, repeatedly illustrated cases where it is the traditional media, and not the bloggers, who act amorally. In reality, blogs have some rather well established ethical standards in practice, including the ethical standrads of (1) disclosing sources through hyperlinks, (2) not suppressing meritorious comments that disagree with the author, (3) rallying around efforts of interested parties to suppress blog reporting, and (4) not accepting uncritically false or misleading statements of fact made by interested parties as mere opinions.http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...me-The- Bloggers
That even Daily Kos would have a higher ethical standard than you surprises me not in the least, Ted
Ken (as censored by Ted): No, Ted is just a [censored], who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at [censored]
Be it in China or California, the mark of the censor is an open confession of one's lack of faith in the coherence and persuasiveness of one's own arguments. The Massachusetts Bay Colony had to banish Roger Williams for his opinions because the elders couldn't refute them; it's not like words like "compulsive liar" (when specifically referring to Ted, and Ted alone) and websites like this ( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g...=1&
isPopup=true ) setting forth the evidence for those claims are pornographic....
You can't win in a free, fair, and unfettered debate, and you know it. Not that it matters, given your staggering lack of Internet sophistication....
Sure, you can keep the ugly truth off of this blog, but no one but members of the Kaldis clan (who already know that it is there from word-of-mouth) can even find it: do a Google search for "cameron brown murder trial," and the first hits you get are blogs by Loretta and her friends. From someone who claims to be so 'Net-savvy, one wonders how a mistake so bizarre and blindingly stupid could even be made. Think about it: If anyone who read Denise Nix's last article wanted to hear your side of the story, how would they ever find you? Adding that to the truly amateurish "Free Cam Brown" website -- which wasn't even cutting-edge in 1994 -- and one has to wonder why you even bother.
Moreover, if you insist upon being propagandists, who are not about to let the whole truth be known on this blog, you have no cause to complain about the proverbial snow on your neighbor's roof. Your own doorstep is unclean.
Ted: Ken, you're incorrigible.
Why should I be "corrected," when I am right and we both know it?
[Ken's pointless abusive blather elided ...]
For something to properly be "corrected," there must be a compelling reason to correct it. Uh, you have the floor, Ted.
Edited By Siteowner
Ken, you're incorrigible.
Ken: Ted makes Shannon Farren seem like Walter Cronkite, by comparison.
Ted: On the other hand, Ted is NOT a professional reporter.
No, Ted is just a [censored], who routinely censors arguments that tear him apart. Anyone who wants to see some of what he has dishonestly censored can find it at [censored]
Ted: Moreover, in order for this comment to make sense, one must necessarily concede that Shannon's reporting is in some sense wanting.
Not necessarily. Walter Cronkite's work was several cuts above any of today's "reporters." FAUX News has obliterated the concept of objective news reporting, by hopelessly blurring fact and opinion and turning the network news department into a profit center. Competent reporters like Greg Palast and Sy Hersh are a dying breed.
Compared to this travesty of a blog, FAUX News constitutes professional reporting.
Edited By Siteowner
Ken Smith wrote
Ted makes Shannon Farren seem like Walter Cronkite, by comparison.On the other hand, Ted is NOT a professional reporter. Moreover, in order for this comment to make sense, one must necessarily concede that Shannon's reporting is in some sense wanting.
anony: Shannon was fair for only a very short time at the beginning of the trial. Then she changed drastically - she went from reporting both sides to only telling the prosecutor's side and instead of taking notes during the testimony, she would sit down with the prosecutor's paralegal during the breaks and write furiously. All this began after a few days of testimony, but given that there was a week recess after two days of testimony (the Judge had a vacation) the change in her reporting “coincidentally” occurred at about the same time they started dating.
Given how "fair and balanced" this blog is, you scarcely have cause for complaint. Ted makes Shannon Farren seem like Walter Cronkite, by comparison. (Also, Ted makes Godzilla look like Megyn Kelly, by comparison....)
Ken Smith wrote:
Don't see why this one is a foul, Ted.Yes, and neither can you understand why the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board would ask you to submit to a psychological examination. But I can.
Ken: I can't help but wonder how much of that was dictated by John and Ken.
Ted: I don't think any of it was. She was in the courtroom, they were not. They ran with what she gave them (and as long as it gave them an opportunity to bash Geragos, they were only too happy to go with it).
They needed a certain spin to make their show work. I still have some of the mp3s folks sent me; there's no way they were going to do anything too serious. Shannon knew what she was looking for, and for that reason, her hooking up with Hum probably didn't change things all that much.
Ken Smith wrote:
I can't help but wonder how much of that was dictated by John and Ken.I don't think any of it was. She was in the courtroom, they were not. They ran with what she gave them (and as long as it gave them an opportunity to bash Geragos, they were only too happy to go with it).
Ken, BEHAVE! If it got poofed once, it will get poofed AGAIN. Drop the abuse, and it won't get poofed. (You ARE allowed to disagree here, but just remain civil.)
anony: Shannon was fair for only a very short time at the beginning of the trial. Then she changed drastically - she went from reporting both sides to only telling the prosecutor's side
I can't help but wonder how much of that was dictated by John and Ken.
Ken, do please behave. (And please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.)
Ken: Conclusion: Neither one is out of each other's league, but Hum doesn't seem capable of turning [Shannon Farren's] head on looks alone. Robert Redford, he is not. One "film credit": as himself, on Court TV.Patty married Cam FOR HIS MONEY?!?
Ted: Get your head screwed on. Women are different, looks [of their man] aren't their primary concern. As Dennis Prager says, men look at the physical, women look at the fiscal.
Unfortunately, even if your claim was true -- one wonders how you would have found this out without stalking herWe found out when Mark Geragos and Pat Harris ran into them and they admitted that they started dating a couple of weeks into the trial.
it isn't probative of anything, unless you can show that their relationship began before the trial. People do meet at parties, you know. They obviously had something in common, which would have gotten the initial conversation going. You can't infer anything sinister from that fact alone ... and let us not forget that you described Shannon as being scrupulously fairShannon was fair for only a very short time at the beginning of the trial. Then she changed drastically - she went from reporting both sides to only telling the prosecutor's side and instead of taking notes during the testimony, she would sit down with the prosecutor's paralegal during the breaks and write furiously. All this began after a few days of testimony, but given that there was a week recess after two days of testimony (the Judge had a vacation) the change in her reporting “coincidentally” occurred at about the same time they started dating.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:I dunno, sounds about right to me.BTW, Ken, are you aware that Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend?Let's see, now ... Hum has to be at least forty, Ted.
Photo here: [ http://home.comcast.net/~kaldis/Hum.htm caption & background added --tak]Yup, that's him. I don't know how long ago that picture was taken, it might be a few years old.
I'm not sure why CG found him attractive ...On the other hand, you're a guy. You see things differently (even discounting the observations of the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board).
Farren appears as though she is in her mid-thirties.Mmmm ... I would thought she was in her twenties several years ago. I dunno, she might be over 30 by now.
And at least in L.A., where standards are astronomically high (ever see the talent at the pool at the Hard Rock in Vegas on a weekend?), you could argue that she has a face for radio: [ http://home.comcast.net/~kaldis/...dis/ Shannon.htm caption & background added --tak] Given the gushing descriptions of her during the first trial, I was expecting something more along the lines of a grizzled 24-year-old veteran of casting calls and directors' couches. She's cute, but nothing special for L.A.I don't think that picture really does her justice. During the trial, she had shorter hair, bleached VERY light, almost white, kind of like a surfer's bleached blond.
Conclusion: Neither one is out of each other's league, but Hum doesn't seem capable of turning her head on looks alone. Robert Redford, he is not. One "film credit": as himself, on Court TV.Get your head screwed on. Women are different, looks [of their man] aren't their primary concern. As Dennis Prager says, men look at the physical, women look at the fiscal.
Unfortunately, even if your claim was true -- one wonders how you would have found this out without stalking herFrom Geragos. He ran into them together at the Sacramento airport some time back. And Hum, somewhat flustered at being discovered, blurted out that they had "hooked up" during the Cameron Brown trial.
-- it isn't probative of anything, unless you can show that their relationship began before the trial.I believe that it began DURING the trial -- and that it affected her reporting of it. But obviously, of course, I can't prove it.
Ted: BTW, Ken, are you aware that Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend?
Let's see, now... Hum has to be at least forty, Ted. Photo here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/tr...raig-
Hum200.jpg . I'm not sure why CG found him attractive....
Farren appears as though she is in her mid-thirties. And at least in L.A., where standards are astronomically high (ever see the talent at the pool at the Hard Rock in Vegas on a weekend?), you could argue that she has a face for radio: http://www.kfi640.com/timages/
pa...ren_148x152.jpg . Given the gushing descriptions of her during the first trial, I was expecting something more along the lines of a grizzled 24-year-old veteran of casting calls and directors' couches. She's cute, but nothing special for L.A.
Conclusion: Neither one is out of each other's league, but Hum doesn't seem capable of turning her head on looks alone. Robert Redford, he is not. One "film credit": as himself, on Court TV.
Unfortunately, even if your claim was true -- one wonders how you would have found this out without stalking her -- it isn't probative of anything, unless you can show that their relationship began before the trial. People do meet at parties, you know. They obviously had something in common, which would have gotten the initial conversation going. You can't infer anything sinister from that fact alone ... and let us not forget that you described Shannon as being scrupulously fair (except for the fact that her assessment of Patty was brutal).
Let's assume that John and Ken do cover the retrial. It will be tough for you to cry "Foul!" unless Shannon covers it; they have a half-dozen reporters, and not having Shannon reprise her role can't be a bad thing. At the end of the day, Team Cam should be delighted with this state of affairs, because you win either way.
Speaking of which, I'm surprised that Cam's case has never ended up on Greta sans Substance's show. After all, you do have an "in" there, and Lauren was every bit as cute as Caylee. This tells me that you don't have a slam-dunk case of official misconduct, because Greta would run with it if you did.
BTW, Ken, are you aware that Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend?
From the Breeze board:
In addition, many of his previous actions point to a man who has a flagrant disregard for his child's safety.I think you are going to have to unveil Patty, even if the photographic evidence suggests that you two had separate fathers. Remember, this is L.A., and this question is going to be asked. A good wedding photo couldn't hurt.
Has anyone found a photo of his money support (wife) yet? Just curious
No. She's about ten years older than him, and was described by Shannon of the John and Ken show as "large" and "slovenly."
A photo of her twin brother can be found at http://home.earthlink.net/~19ran...r57/ TED_AUS.jpg . Put shoulder-length, dishwater-grey hair on that, and you get a decent first approximation; it was her first marriage. Given that Cam used to score with younger hotties like Sarah and the Baywatch Babe, many have concluded that he married her for her money.
The video obtained by Hope Steffey's lawyer and released to the public represents only a fraction of Hope's actual torture by the Stark County sheriffs department in Ohio. The video is difficult to watch, but it's very important for people, particularly Americans, to know that this outrageous crime has taken place in their country. The legal outcome of this case could determine what kind of country the United States becomes. If this level of injustice and brutality towards American citizens by their own law enforcement agencies and legal system is condoned and not corrected, the real possibility of humiliating and painful torture exists for all Americans.Source: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/c...08/03/10/ p23979
As expected, Denise is on the job -- even if no one else is:
Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum, who handled Brown's first trial, said Friday that the only difference the court location will have is that jurors won't be as familiar with South Bay locations when witnesses mention them.She's even given Ted some press which, on the face of it, doesn't exactly help his cause:
However, he does expect that the change of venue will help the trial move along faster since Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor presides over lengthy trials only, and court can be in session all day.
One thing that may be different, depending on how Pastor rules on a pending motion, is that the jury may hear from witnesses who will say Brown had temper and anger issues - especially in regard to girlfriends, Hum said.
"There are some witnesses that have come forward since the last trial," Hum said.
For Brown, the biggest change will be that he is no longer represented by high-profile attorney Mark Geragos.
With funds tapped from Brown's family, Geragos bowed out. However, an associate who tried the first case along with him, Pat Harris, was appointed by Torrance Superior Court Judge Mark Arnold to handle the case on the county's dime.
Meanwhile, on the outside, his supporters - including his wife and her brother - have continued their efforts to keep Brown's case in the spotlight.That 2003 mug shot doesn't help his reputation much, but the core story seems reasonably fair. More importantly, she alludes to the fact that the prosecution has put the delays to good use, and may have shored up some of the holes in the first case. Having a second-stringer come to bat won't favor Cam, as there is an advantage to having a celebrity attorney.
In long letters to media outlets and others, as well as on the Internet, Brown's brother-in-law details what he perceives to be unfair treatment of Brown by prosecutors and news reporters. At the same time, he focuses on nuances in the evidence that he believes prove Brown's innocence.
As for the peanut gallery, those who know him are painting him as a sort of borderline Trig van Palin:
Cameron, like I said earlier is a simple sort of man with a slower way of thinking than the average person. If he were a child today he would probably be in a very special class to help him understand the ways of the world and the ways of people.OUCH! Bill Cosby called it "slow class."
I have followed this trial, the facts of the case and the on-line campaign by his relatives to smear the mother and "prove" his innocence.People see the mud you throw at Sarah, Ted. And this is the reaction pretty much everyone has:
Personally, I think this "simple minded man" is so simple that he figured he could get away with murder so as not to have to pay child support.
Take a walk out to the cliff where she supposedly jumped off. No one in their right mind would take a toddler out there!
Ken Smith wrote:
Every time I prove that you are a liar, you "poof" the post.Quit the nonsense, Ken. I am not amused with your puerile games. Anyway, you are WAY off-topic.
Ted: To say that I "lie" IS a lie!
Every time I prove that you are a liar, you "poof" the post.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:To say that I "lie" IS a lie! You mendacious prevaricator.You contribute precious little -- if even any -- light, and MUCH heat.When it comes to legitimate information, you are a veritable black hole -- you spend so much time lying that, on those rare occasions when you do tell the truth, it is almost always accidental.
Ted: You contribute precious little -- if even any -- light, and MUCH heat.When it comes to legitimate information, you are a veritable black hole -- you spend so much time lying that, on those rare occasions when you do tell the truth, it is almost always accidental.
Ted: How could that be? Those major-league MORONS [John and Ken] were on vacation last week.Do you honestly think their operation stops when they take a week off? Everybody in the media takes Fourth of July weekend off. That's why Failin' Palin timed her press conference for when she did.
Ted: Obviously this person has never heard of Natalie Yeargan.IIRC, we've had about five cases of parents throwing kids off of bridges since Cam went to trial, from Australia to Louisiana. Not one of them has occurred in a situation where the marriage or relationship was even close to stable. The logical rule of decision? If the relationship was stable, it was almost certainly an accident; if not, it most likely was murder. That's not good enough to convict imho, but I've already explained why in great detail. But then again, I'm not on the jury and couldn't be even if I was in the jury pool.
Ken: [compared to the writer of the passage in question], I have been unduly charitableLet's put it this way, Ted: If we applied the standards you have used to judge me on Cam, he would have been disemboweled, and drawn and quartered years ago.
Ted: No you haven't. Quite[sic] kidding yourself.
If you go back and check the record, you will note that I have been accurate in my predictions, and that I have called a foul a foul on those few occasions when there really was a bona fide foul. [Any purported fouls based on super-sekrit information known only to Ted do not count; an umpire can only call what he sees.] Compare that to your record: You wouldn't even find fault when a judge decides her own case, while whining about Judge Arnold's purported [and, constitutionally permissible; see Judge Nottingham's decision in the Phillips case, which has been commented on at length at KnowYourCOurts] bias.
Commentator: This man is lower than pond scum and should live his miserable life in the most misery that can be legally inflicted upon him.IOW, she's a little better than one Theodore A. Kaldis, who has a habit of ignoring pesky facts which get in the way of his immaculate preconceptions.
Ted: The one who is REALLY "lower than pond scum" is, of course, the MORON who wrote this nonsense, who knows NOTHING of the real situation.
Ken: Unfortunately for Cam, most jurors are going to bring this attitude into the courtroom.As he damn near won it the first time -- as Denise concisely put it, "[i]t's been nearly three years since a Torrance jury couldn't agree on what crime to convict Cameron Brown with" -- it can't be that much of a "dog." If the authorities' attempt to frame Cam for the shiv incident comes in, he has a fairly high likelihood of acquittal, but the system is skewed toward conviction, and the facts don't lend themselves especially well to a presumption of innocence.
Ted: If Craig Hum has his way. It's the only way that he can win his dog of a case.
Ken Smith wrote:
I have been unduly charitable:No you haven't. Quit kidding yourself.
Obviously this person has never heard of Natalie Yeargan.
This man is guilty as sin. I have ** 3 ** grandchildren (2 girls, 1 boy) and NONE of them at age 3 or 4 or 5 would EVER go near a cliff.
ALL kids that age are afraid of that kind of thing, even the most curious, which one of mine was.
The one who is REALLY "lower than pond scum" is, of course, the MORON who wrote this nonsense, who knows NOTHING of the real situation.This man is lower than pond scum and should live his miserable life in the most misery that can be legally inflicted upon him.
Unfortunately for Cam, most jurors are going to bring this attitude into the courtroom.If Craig Hum has his way. It's the only way that he can win his dog of a case.
Ken Smith wrote
As I suspected, Denise Nix is on the jobNo she ain't (just like last time around). All she does is rewrite Craig Hum's press statements. And all you get from her is one side of the story.
and so are John and Ken.How could that be? Those major-league MORONS were on vacation last week.
Ken Smith wrote:
Given that I am ~100% of your audienceDon't do us any favours. You contribute precious little -- if even any -- light, and MUCH heat. We would be better off WITHOUT you.
As I suspected, Denise Nix is on the job ... and so are John and Ken.
It's been nearly three years since a Torrance jury couldn't agree on what crime to convict Cameron Brown with. Now, the case is poised once again for trial - this time in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom.OUCH!!! True, but brutal. And when you compare my comments to those of the average reader, I have been unduly charitable:
Brown is charged with murder for the Nov. 8, 2000, death of his 4-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, who died after going over a 120-foot cliff in Rancho Palos Verdes. Prosecutors believe Brown, 48, threw the girl to avoid paying child support. He's also facing the special circumstance allegations of lying in wait and killing for financial gain. He is facing the possibility of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum, who handled the first 2006 trial, said today that there will be some pretrial motions in the case's new home before Judge Michael Pastor on Thursday. Specifically, Pastor will decide if the jurors in the second trial, like those in the first, will take a field trip to Inspiration Point. Jury selection is expected to begin July 9. Trial should go through mid-September.
This man is guilty as sin. I have ** 3 ** grandchildren (2 girls, 1 boy) and NONE of them at age 3 or 4 or 5 would EVER go near a cliff.Unfortunately for Cam, most jurors are going to bring this attitude into the courtroom.
ALL kids that age are afraid of that kind of thing, even the most curious, which one of mine was.
This man is lower than pond scum and should live his miserable life in the most misery that can be legally inflicted upon him.
Ken: First, you put up a website to make Cam's situation the public's business and now, you don't want the rest of us to make it our business?Given that I am ~100% of your audience outside of the Kook Kaldis Klan these days, that borders on lunacy. I don't think even John and Ken are going to bother pronouncing him guilty this go-around.
Ted: That comment was directed to only one person, not to everybody.
Ken Smith wrote:
First, you put up a website to make Cam's situation the public's business and now, you don't want the rest of us to make it our business?That comment was directed to only one person, not to everybody.
Ken: Today [2 July, '09] should have been a court date. Do we have firm news about the retrial?First, you put up a website to make Cam's situation the public's business and now, you don't want the rest of us to make it our business? That makes perfect sense, coming from you. You wouldn't happen to be one of Caribou Barbie's advisers, now would you?
Ted: Yes, WE do. But YOU don't. MYOFB.
As for the trial dates, I can always get them from Denise Nix, if push comes to shove. I would think that you would want people to know.
Speaking of scandals:
I've now been able to get independent information from multiple sources that all of this precedes what are said to be possible federal indictments against Palin, concerning an embezzlement scandal related to the building of Palin's house and the Wasilla Sports Complex built during her tenure as Mayor.One wouldn't have thought it possible, but Mark Sanford is going to outlast the Quitta from Wasilla.
Ken Smith wrote:
Today [2 July, '09] should have been a court date. Do we have firm news about the retrial?Yes, WE do. But YOU don't. MYOFB.
Today should have been a court date. Do we have firm news about the retrial?
Ken: It is manifestly unfair for you to maliciously cast aspersions upon my honesty, integrity, and even sanity [...]To trot out that argument here is to tacitly admit that that you are either ignorant or malicious. Are you really that blindingly ignorant, Ted? Did you flunk elementary logic in high school? Do you mean to tell us that you honestly don't know what an ad hominem argument is?
Ted: It's not as if I somehow manipulated the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board. What's "malicious" about recounting their findings?
The appropriate response is to educate you, on the off chance that your obvious lack of knowledge here is due to the kind of simple ignorance you wouldn't expect to find in a man with a decent college education:
Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person)Just remember that thirty-five out of thirty-seven jurors found Cameron Brown to be a cold-blooded child-killer.
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.
While it is fair for me to point out your constantly-shifting and irreconcilable positions because this fairly casts serious aspersions on your personal character and/or intellectual consistency, the mere recitation of the "findings" of the Colorado bar, you need to know and disclose the standards by which the subject is being judged, and what evidence is being considered. For instance, a grand jury's threshold is probable cause, and they only hear the government's side of the case; is it fair to equate a grand juror's findings with those of a juror seated at trial? Now, with that in mind, consider the standard used by the Colorado bar:
In addition, probable cause for denial of an application may be established by any evidence which, in the judgment of the majority of the inquiry panel members, tends to show that the applicant is not mentally stable or morally or ethically fit to practice law. In making its probable cause determination, the inquiry panel is not bound by formal rules of evidence and may consider all documents, statements or other matters brought to its attention.That standard is not even probable cause at common law; they have to redefine the term to lower the bar. This standard is so low that someone who is falsely accused of being a Raiders fan could be prevented from getting a license simply because one of his enemies said that he was a Raiders fan.
Ken Smith wrote:
It is manifestly unfair for you to maliciously cast aspersions upon my honesty, integrity, and even sanity [...]It's not as if I somehow manipulated the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board. What's "malicious" about recounting their findings?
Ken: I still want an answer, Ted. If you are so innocent, why do you act like a man who fears the truth?
Ted: I'm not afraid of the truth.
Which is why your have been censoring opposition like a member of China's Central Committee, right?
Ken: If I can pick and choose the facts to be considered, I can prove to a certainty that Cam Brown murdered Lauren.
Ted: No you can't.
Let me emend that statement to be more precise. Under the specified circumstances, I could prove that Cameron John Brown murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren in cold blood to a legal certainty.
Ted: Remember, even the "professionals" couldn't do that.
They didn't enjoy the conditions I specified -- the ones you are attempting to impose here with your mullah-class censorship. Think of how Cam's trial would have gone if the only evidence presented was that favoring the prosecution. The jury almost convicted Cam WITH your top-drawer attorney. Take away your experts, your attorney's objections, and testimony favorable to Cam, and do you honestly think that he would have stood a chance?
Ted: BECAUSE CAM DIDN'T MURDER LAUREN!
Unless you were there, you don't know that, Ted.
Ted: So they went out and manufactured some "facts" of their own.
Precisely my objection with what you are doing, Ted. It is manifestly unfair for you to maliciously cast aspersions upon my honesty, integrity, and even sanity without affording me the opportunity to demonstrate that you are a sociopath and hypocrite, and that you are fabricating the "facts" you need to make your case against me.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the Bible describes your actions as sinful, but you probably don't know that because you're too busy having carnal relations with your Bible to bother reading it.
Ken Smith wrote:
If I can pick and choose the facts to be considered, I can prove to a certainty that Cam Brown murdered Lauren.No you can't. Remember, even the "professionals" couldn't do that. BECAUSE CAM DIDN'T MURDER LAUREN! So they went out and manufactured some "facts" of their own.
Ken Smith wrote:
I still want an answer, Ted. If you are so innocent, why do you act like a man who fears the truth?I'm not afraid of the truth. On the other hand, I haven't seen very much of it from you.
I still want an answer, Ted. If you are so innocent, why do you act like a man who fears the truth?
Ted: Ken, don't you have better things to do?
Don't you?
You have no honor, and even less shame. You know as well as I do that you couldn't live by the rules you would impose on me. The word is "Pharisee," Ted.
Ken, don't you have better things to do?
Ted: It's just a matter-of-fact recounting of the facts.
Not true, and you know it. If I can pick and choose the facts to be considered, I can prove to a certainty that Cam Brown murdered Lauren. If you think that it is fair to treat me in this manner, how can you justly complain when others return the favor to Cam?
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:If you were to use language and terminology here such as that which you would use to address the court, then most likely your posts would not be abusive. (I say "most likely" because, in your case, one never can tell.)Anyway, that post was poofed because it was abusive.How so? Please be specific.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Is it? It's just a matter-of-fact recounting of the facts.Ken, I believe that readers who are not well-acquianted with you should be made aware ...And this isn't an abusive ad hominem attack?
And how is this on-topic?It's being provided here in order to give the reader a little insight into the nature of your character, so as to better explain your behaviour here.
Ted: Speak for yourself.
I can't, as long as you keep censoring my posts without cause or justification.
Ted: I believe that you DID equivocate. Anyway, that post was poofed because it was abusive.
How so? Please be specific. All it did was point out that (1) purely civil conspiracies are so rare that when people think of a conspiracy, they think of a criminal conspiracy, and (2) you have expressly disavowed claims that Cam was the victim of a criminal conspiracy in the past. This is par for the course for you because, in direct contravention of the Biblical teachings you purport to espouse, you never let your "yes" mean yes and your "no" mean no.
[remainder of post elided]
Edited By Siteowner
Ken: Criminal conspiracies usually have an object, and you don't have anything that falls within the same time zone.
Anony: We haven't shared it yet - not we don't have anything.
So, why has your sociopathic sibling been denying it for the past five years?
Ted: And the only two reasons that some of your posts get poofed here is that you are abusive, or else you are off-topic.
Ted: Ken, I believe that readers who are not well-acquianted with you should be made aware that you were asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board when you applied to become a lawyer in that state. The reader is invited to judge, based on your conduct here, whether or not this was a reasonable request. (BTW, Ken refused to submit to the examination, and his application to become a lawyer was DENIED because of it.)
And this isn't an abusive ad hominem attack? And how is this on-topic?
So, what is the rule of law here? Ted is free to level off-topic, abusive ad hominem attacks, but whenever someone calls him on his lies and documents them, it suddenly becomes "abusive?"
Ted, you have finally graduated to mullah-class insanity. Kim Jong-il and Ali Khamenei couldn't be prouder.
Ted: Speak for yourself.
I can't, as long as you keep censoring my posts without cause or justification.
Ted: I believe that you DID equivocate. Anyway, that post was poofed because it was abusive.
How so? Please be specific. All it did was point out that (1) purely civil conspiracies are so rare that when people think of a conspiracy, they think of a criminal conspiracy, and (2) you have expressly disavowed claims that Cam was the victim of a criminal conspiracy in the past. This is par for the course for you because, in direct contravention of the Biblical teachings you purport to espouse, you never let your "yes" mean yes and your "no" mean no.
[remainder of post elided]
Edited By Siteowner
Ken, I believe that readers who are not well-acquianted with you should be made aware that you were asked to submit to a psychological examination by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board when you applied to become a lawyer in that state. The reader is invited to judge, based on your conduct here, whether or not this was a reasonable request. (BTW, Ken refused to submit to the examination, and his application to become a lawyer was DENIED because of it.)
Ted: Ken, you have BELITTLED much, but you haven't debunked anything.
At least, not in fora where you can practice viewpoint-based censorship. Your mentors in Tehran and Pyongyang would be SO proud of you....
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Speak for yourself. I say that it IS true.And the only two reasons that some of your posts get poofed here is that you are abusive, or else you are off-topic.That's not true, and we both know it.
You accused me of equivocation, which makes a response on-topic.I believe that you DID equivocate. Anyway, that post was poofed because it was abusive.
There has to be a "why" here, anony ... There has to be something that makes this make sense.There is.
You're missing the point. What's the point in prosecuting a guy you know to be innocent, when to do so would expose you to twenty years in federal prison, when you don't have a dog in the hunt? Criminal conspiracies usually have an object, and you don't have anything that falls within the same time zone.We haven't shared it yet - not we don't have anything.
Ken, you have BELITTLED much, but you haven't debunked anything. And the only two reasons that some of your posts get poofed here is that you are abusive, or else you are off-topic. Try to remain civil and on-topic -- and if you can succeed at this, your posts won't get poofed.
anony: The prosecution manufactured fake evidence to charge Cam with a capital offense, because without the fake evidence they did not have a capital case. (I promise to prove this in due time.) They used the capital case to put him in jail without bail, and they used his incarceration to help their case! Welcome to justice in America!
There has to be a "why" here, anony. Ted has made at least half a dozen suggestions as to the putative motive, but all of them (Remember the "Craig Hum is running for office" trial balloon? It took me all of two minutes to debunk it.) were so absurd and so easily disproven that they were laughable. There has to be something that makes this make sense.
anony: Actually the issue of flight risk has never been mentioned by anyone. He has been refused bail because he is charged with a 1st degree murder and the law allows them to hold him without bail whether he is a flight risk or not.
It allows them to do it, but unless I miss my guess, it does not mandate that they do it. If Blake and Spector could get bail, you would expect that Cam Brown would be eligible, as well.
anony: Not true, the prosecution has benefited by limiting his time with his attorney, listening in on his meetings with his attoney, taking his legal paperwork with notes for his attorney and reacting to those notes, listening to his conversations with his family and friends and responding to what was said, and much more of this kind of thing.
You're missing the point. What's the point in prosecuting a guy you know to be innocent, when to do so would expose you to twenty years in federal prison, when you don't have a dog in the hunt? Criminal conspiracies usually have an object, and you don't have anything that falls within the same time zone.
But as I said, the reason that I suspect bond was never set is not because the prosecution actually thinks Brown is a flight risk but rather it is because they know that if bond were set even if it was set at 2 or 3 million dollars he could post it and they do not want him out of jail so they say he is a flight risk and the judges have gone along with it.Actually the issue of flight risk has never been mentioned by anyone. He has been refused bail because he is charged with a 1st degree murder and the law allows them to hold him without bail whether he is a flight risk or not.
Not true, the prosecution has benefited by limiting his time with his attorney, listening in on his meetings with his attoney, taking his legal paperwork with notes for his attorney and reacting to those notes, listening to his conversations with his family and friends and responding to what was said, and much more of this kind of thing.In Cam's case, there is no evidence that anyone would benefit from his incarceration.What kind of silly statement is this? Who's asserting that the cops have Cameron in jail because they would benefit personally?
In addition, one thing that Cam had going for him when he was first arrested was his demeanor made it unbelievable that he was the kind of person who would do the kind of thing he was accused of. His attorney initially planned to use that. But after years of malicious and sadistic abuse the deputys have worn that away.
I can go on and on. The bottom line is the prosecution has helped its case a great deal by incarcerating Cam.
The prosecution manufactured fake evidence to charge Cam with a capital offense, because without the fake evidence they did not have a capital case. (I promise to prove this in due time.) They used the capital case to put him in jail without bail, and they used his incarceration to help their case! Welcome to justice in America!
Ken Smith wrote:
In Cam's case, there is no evidence that anyone would benefit from his incarceration.What kind of silly statement is this? Who's asserting that the cops have Cameron in jail because they would benefit personally?
Ken Smith wrote:
Then, it's not much of a point. Cui bono? In the Ramparts affair, the cops benefited personally from their criminal activities.Not after they got caught.
Ted: What purpose did the Ramparts affair have?Then, it's not much of a point. Cui bono? In the Ramparts affair, the cops benefited personally from their criminal activities. In Cam's case, there is no evidence that anyone would benefit from his incarceration.
Ken: Six pounds of cocaine. Bank robbery. Murder for hire. LAPD cops on the payroll of local criminal enterprises.
Ted: My point exactly. There was NO grand purpose here, dirty cops were taking opportunities just as they arose.
Every "rule of law" that you invoke always has "a [alleged] baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception." You insist that the State must show a motive to convict Cam, but you have no problem with accusing LASD officials of participating in a criminal conspiracy that has no discernible objective.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:My point exactly. There was NO grand purpose here, dirty cops were taking opportunities just as they arose.What purpose did the Ramparts affair have?Six pounds of cocaine. Bank robbery. Murder for hire. LAPD cops on the payroll of local criminal enterprises.
Ken Smith wrote:
And are you going to inform our new visitor as to your diatribes concerning the Catholic Cult?I have NEVER said that the Roman Catholic church is in any sense a "cult", you prevaricator. Nor have I ever made any "diatribes" against them. While I have, in the context of discussions about RELIGIOUS ISSUES, said that I believe there are some things that are amiss within the Catholic church -- I have also noted that the same could be said about ANY organised church. Moreover, I have pointed out that, as the Roman Catholic church has not denied (and does not deny) the diety of Christ, we can nevertheless consider them to be our Christian brethren, despite our differences.
Anyway, Ken, you're so predictable. I knew you were going to bring this up -- and overstate it, as you invariably do.
Ken Smith wrote:
So, which is it, Ted? Either you are alleging a criminal conspiracy, or the players have done nothing wrong.Tsk, tsk, Ken. Equivocating again, I see. A CRIMINAL conspiracy is something other than what is envisioned when one uses the unqualified term "conspiracy". What I am talking about would almost certainly fit the definition of "criminal conspiracy".
Ted: I have never used the word, and I MOST CERTAINLY have never insinuated that this must be what is going on here. The word conjures up images of malefactors meeting in some dingy darkened room to plan some nefarious strategy. But it NEVER works that way.
Since when did you become the expert on criminal conspiracies? Apart from admitting that you were once a part of one (involving an armed robbery), I thought you had kept your nose clean. I don't presume to know what the criminal element does behind closed doors, but "conspiracy" is defined by law. Either there is a conspiracy, or there is not. If there is not, it effectively obliterates your complaint, as there are too many redundancies built into the system for it to fail if everyone is doing an honest job.
Ted: What purpose did the Ramparts affair have?
Six pounds of cocaine. Bank robbery. Murder for hire. LAPD cops on the payroll of local criminal enterprises. The usual stuff. The Denver PD had a similar scandal involving a burglary ring back in the '60s. Cops were framing others for their crimes.
Contrast that with the Cam Brown situation. Cui bono, Ted?
Kris: Well, it is an injustice that Cameron Brown has been in the LA County Jail for 5 and a half years. In fact, it is an injustice he has been held without bail the whole time as well. For sure after the hung jury he should have been allowed to post bond.
I have said virtually the same thing. That having been said, however, there is a vast and often unbridgeable gulf between what is "just" and what is "legal." If you are going to study the law, you will figure this out in due course (Ted hasn't even discovered a glimmer of what the law is all about). I would argue that the standard for pre-trial detention is unreasonably low, but it is the law.
Cam's jury was hung 10-2 on the charge of Murder Two, with two jurors voting for Murder One. The standard for holding a murder suspect is probable cause, and if they could get two out of twelve jurors to conclude that the case against Cam was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it logically follows that you have probable cause in spades. Moreover, a decision to deny bail potentially implicates federal rights and presumably, subject to some form of appellate review within the state system. Geragos has chosen not to contest the matter, which suggests authoritatively to me that he knows that it is within the discretion of the court to do what they are doing.
Kris: Now if I remember right, in California, first degree murder is one of the only if not the only charge where a person can be held indefinitely without having bond set. Brown was nearly acquitted of first degree murder at his first trial. If he had been acquitted of that charge and there had been a hung jury on the lesser charges still than because he would have only been facing 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter charges he would have had bond set, my guess is at 1 million dollars and he would have been able to post it.
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades. The reality is that prosecutors over-charge for purposes of leverage, and being able to lock someone up indefinitely is to be able to put a lot of pressure on a suspect. Problem is, it is the system that permits it. What they can do to Cam and what they "ought to" do to him, imho (which doesn't count for an awful lot in that venue), are two very different matters.
Kris: But Brown was/is not a risk of flight. Hell, he stuck around for 3 years despite the fact he knew he was under investigation. Does not exactly sound like a guy that was hiding.
Depends on how you look at it. If you suddenly fled to Argentina, it might be seen as a tacit declaration of guilt. Moreover, my understanding is that Cam's dad was an investment banker, who has enough jack to set him up in a country without an extradition treaty, were he so inclined. Finally, there is the celebrity factor. Celebs get different treatment than hoi polloi, and it is usually quite a bit better.
Ted: Nevertheless, the funny business started right from the MOMENT that LASD became involved in the case.
Either it is a criminal conspiracy, or you have no cause for complaint. There is no third option.
Ted: Ken, if you get abusive, you're gonna get poofed. So please mind your manners.
Who's being "abusive?" You're the one who exclaimed, "Fuck the dictionary definition!" You're the one who redefines words like Humpty Dumpty on steroids. Your sociopathic inability to tell the truth is well-documented. You need to be honest enough to not "poof" coherent refutations of your arguments, instead of simply making them disappear. (But that is obviously asking way too much of you.)
And are you going to inform our new visitor as to your diatribes concerning the Catholic Cult?
Ted: Why do you keep bringing up "conspiracy"?
Because you have alleged it [even though you rely on the TKT-FD version of the word to deny it]. The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." Id. Basically, there are three elements: an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act, and the overt acts you allege are acts of honest services mail fraud.
The seminal case on honest services mail fraud in my Circuit is United States v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 2003). Therein, it was observed:
The elements of federal mail fraud as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1341 are (1) a scheme or artifice to defraud or obtain property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, (2) an intent to defraud, and (3) use of the mails to execute the scheme. … One may "defraud" another within the meaning of §§ 1341 and 1343 by depriving another of property or "the intangible right of honest services." Whether alleging a deprivation of property or honest services or both, a mail or wire fraud indictment must allege a scheme to defraud, an intent to defraud, and use of mail or wire.Id., 327 F.3d at ____, 2003.C10.0000504 at ¶ 108 (Versuslaw, citations omitted).
The gravamen of an honest services fraud "is that the public is not getting what it expects and deserves: honest, faithful, disinterested service from a public official. This concept applies whether the official is bribed or fails to disclose a conflict of interest." United States v. Mangiardi, 962 F. Supp. 49, 51 (M.D. Penn. 1997). Importantly, a perpetrator need not recognize personal gain from his actions, but only intend to deprive the public of either his or others’ honest services.United States v. Welch, supra.
People have to know to look the other way, and be sufficiently afraid of adverse consequences to commit felonies in furtherance of the scheme, if one exists. The question is always one of whether they acted in good faith, albeit incompetently.
So, which is it, Ted? Either you are alleging a criminal conspiracy, or the players have done nothing wrong.
Well, it is an injustice that Cameron Brown has been in the LA County Jail for 5 and a half years. In fact, it is an injustice he has been held without bail the whole time as well. For sure after the hung jury he should have been allowed to post bond. The reason I suspect that bond was not set is because the prosecution knew if bond was set that Cam Brown's family and friends could and would post it. It seems in California when bond is set for first degree murder cases, it can be set as low as 1 million dollars or as high as 2 or 3 million dollars. But I find it unusual that they (the prosecution and the court system) have never allowed Brown to post bond. They even allowed Robert Blake to post bond, although he was held without bail for a year and then bail was set at 2.5 million if I remember right. But as I said, the reason that I suspect bond was never set is not because the prosecution actually thinks Brown is a flight risk but rather it is because they know that if bond were set even if it was set at 2 or 3 million dollars he could post it and they do not want him out of jail so they say he is a flight risk and the judges have gone along with it.
Now if I remember right, in California, first degree murder is one of the only if not the only charge where a person can be held indefinitely without having bond set. Brown was nearly acquitted of first degree murder at his first trial. If he had been acquitted of that charge and there had been a hung jury on the lesser charges still than because he would have only been facing 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter charges he would have had bond set, my guess is at 1 million dollars and he would have been able to post it. But Brown was/is not a risk of flight. Hell, he stuck around for 3 years despite the fact he knew he was under investigation. Does not exactly sound like a guy that was hiding.
Ken, if you get abusive, you're gonna get poofed. So please mind your manners. (I know it's a lot to ask.)
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:What purpose did the Ramparts affair have?And of course anyone who is even moderately acquainted with the criminal justice system in Los Angeles KNOWS that it is RIFE with corruption.What does the general rule have to do with this case? Corruption has to have some purpose,
and you have never postulated any non-risible motive for what would have to be the largest conspiracy this side of the Medellin drug cartel.Why do you keep bringing up "conspiracy"? (Aside from the presumption that you must wear tinfoil on the inside of your hat?) I have never used the word, and I MOST CERTAINLY have never insinuated that this must be what is going on here. The word conjures up images of malefactors meeting in some dingy darkened room to plan some nefarious strategy. But it NEVER works that way. And indeed that's NOT how it went down here. Nevertheless, the funny business started right from the MOMENT that LASD became involved in the case.
What does the general rule have to do with this case? Corruption has to have some purpose, and you have never postulated any non-risible motive for what would have to be the largest conspiracy this side of the Medellin drug cartel.In due time Ken, you will understand the motive. I promise you that!
Ken: While I wholeheartedly agree that it has taken far too long to bring Cam to retrial, it is his own faultNonsense, Ted. Most of the time, prosecutors have way too much on their plate, and they are just juggling around their caseload. Courts do the same thing. It's how the system (doesn't) works.
Ted: How would you know? The fact is, you WOULDN'T, and you DON'T! The prosecutor has pulled many, MANY tricks behind the scenes to delay this -- and the first -- trial. Some of them have been explained to you, but you just pooh-poohed them.
Geragos used the speedy trial waiver as a weapon, in an effort to remove the case from Judge Arnold's courtroom. It's what I would have done in the right set of circumstances, and what he probably should have done. But you can't praise Geragos for doing it and then, whine about it when Hum does it (well, you can and do, because you're a hypocrite).
These two gladiators are telling us through their actions what I told you from the outset: This is a close case, and can go either way. If your client is stone-cold innocent and you can show it, you can and should force the prosecutor's hand by insisting on a speedy trial. If you know you can win as a prosecutor, you push the case to trial. Since no one is in a hurry to try it, and both are looking for advantage at the margins, both sides read it as a toss-up.
When Craig Hum manipulates the system to his advantage, you squeal like a stuck pig
Ted: And of course anyone who is even moderately acquainted with the criminal justice system in Los Angeles KNOWS that it is RIFE with corruption.
What does the general rule have to do with this case? Corruption has to have some purpose, and you have never postulated any non-risible motive for what would have to be the largest conspiracy this side of the Medellin drug cartel.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Au contraire. You have NEVER answered any of these, you liar. You just SAY that you have, and try to pretend that they are mere "holes". But any honest observer who seriously examines the charges that are raised in that website will have to candidly admit that there are some subtantive indications of SERIOUS malfeasance here. (And of course anyone who is even moderately acquainted with the criminal justice system in Los Angeles KNOWS that it is RIFE with corruption.)Ken Smith wrote:Asked and answered, Ted.Team Cam claims to have evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct, but without disclosure,Some of them have been disclosed at http://www.freecambrown.org/ but you choose to ignore those, and mendaciously assert that they don't exist.
Ken: Team Cam claims to have evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct, but without disclosure,
Ted: Some of them have been disclosed at http://www.freecambrown.org/ but you choose to ignore those, and mendaciously assert that they don't exist.
Asked and answered, Ted. The real world isn't CSI; there are holes in every case. Everybody does sloppy work, from judges to prosecutors to defense attorneys to experts to cops on the beat. Memories aren't perfect. To most of the players, this is just one in an endless series of criminal cases that blur together. Pointing out a hole in the prosecutor's case is not tantamount to proving misconduct.
Ken Smith wrote:
Team Cam claims to have evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct, but without disclosure,Liar. Some of them have been disclosed at http://www.freecambrown.org/ but you choose to ignore those, and mendaciously assert that they don't exist.
Ken Smith wrote:
There's not a lot to debate here.Then why are your here? PISS OFF!
While I wholeheartedly agree that it has taken far too long to bring Cam to retrial, it is his own fault,How would you know? The fact is, you WOULDN'T, and you DON'T! The prosecutor has pulled many, MANY tricks behind the scenes to delay this -- and the first -- trial. Some of them have been explained to you, but you just pooh-poohed them. Because you have an agenda.
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted kicks me off every now and again becauseYou constantly try to shift the debate and make the issue your case rather than discuss Cameron's.
he doesn't like it when I beat him silly in debate.Psuh. When has that ever happened?
Kris: or anyone else that is interested in having real debate.
There's not a lot to debate here. While I wholeheartedly agree that it has taken far too long to bring Cam to retrial, it is his own fault, as the delays have all been tactical in nature, related to "judge-shopping." That probable cause to hold him pending trial exists is implicitly established by the fact that the jury hung 10-2 for conviction on Murder Two, and the fact that his father is a millionaire is reason enough to conclude that he is a potential flight risk. No one here has been able to present any evidence that serious due process violations have occurred, although much has been left to be desired regarding their treatment of him (denying access to showers during the trial, and the transparent attempt to frame him on a weapons charge; fortunately, that went nowhere). Team Cam claims to have evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct, but without disclosure, and especially in light of Ted's many bizarre conspiracy theories and consistent disdain for inconvenient facts, I am forced to take them with a pillar of salt.
I don't know Cam Brown from Adam Ant, and don't have a position on whether he is innocent or guilty; I prefer to leave that determination to twelve of his peers. However, I would even extend the protections of the rule of law to the Devil himself, as I know that none cannot stand upright against the wind without it (Ted disagrees). That having been said, perhaps you might be willing to take a position on the questions Ted refuses to address:
1) Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in [jail] for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'
2) [elided -- not relevant to this debate]
Ted kicks me off every now and again because he doesn't like it when I beat him silly in debate.
Edited By Siteowner
Wow, I was expecting something different on this site. It was a headache to have to go back and read through all of the religious bickering. Theodore I agree overall with you views and I respect you being on Cameron Brown's side. I learned about the case back in 06 when the trial was going on and I believed in Cameron Brown's innocence from the start. I wrote him a couple of letters this year to just express my support but I do not know if he got them. I know there is rampant corruption in the LA County Jail, to such an extent that Cameron Brown may not even be able to write letters because he is not being provided with the supplies. Court dates coming up on July 2nd and July 9th, so hopefully this retrial gets under way again soon. Anyway, I would love to have debate about the case and about your views on it Theodore or anyone else that is interested in having real debate.
By the way, just to clear the air, I am a Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, I am an aspiring law student, I am 24 years old, but I have to get my Bachelor's done before I can go to law school. I am very interested in being a defense attorney and really going to bat for people and not just getting everyone to plead out. I am pursuing a Bachelor's Degree in History and I am also fascinated by politics. I am a conservative republican but I am against the death penalty and I am also against the so called 'Victims Rights' movement which I really to believe a bunch of hogwash. It is more like the movement to abolish due process.
My legal hero is F. Lee Bailey. Geragos is not a terrible attorney but he is overrated. I like him, but as I said, he is overrated and gets paid a bundle. Not bad for a guy whose entire practice is based off of getting plea deals for his clients. We just saw it with Chris Brown the other day or with Holly Ashcraft who is alleged to have killed her baby that she claimed was stillborn. Both Brown and Ashcraft got 5 years probation. It seems Geragos has never actually got an acquittal, at least not in a high profile case. He has won dismissals of cases before they went to trial but the hung jury in Cameron Brown's case was the closest Geragos has ever come to winning an acquittal in anything.
Also Ken, you are wrong on Scott Peterson. To be honest, I think Geragos did the best he could with that case. In fact, while I do not think Geragos could have got an acquittal I do think he could have got a hung jury. There was some issues there with all of the jurors who would not convict getting dismissed for various reasons. There was a few that went in with an open mind and about 3 or 4 jurors that I like to call 'stealth' jurors. That is , in my opinion jurors that go into a trial already thinking the defendant is guilty and doing whatever they can to convict. In Peterson's trial there was also at least 3 jurors that were dismissed either during the trial itself or during deliberations including one that was the jury foreman at the beginning of deliberations and these 3 or 4 were in favor of acquittal and said they got dismissed from the panel largely because the ones that wanted to convict ganged up on them.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Nope. This site is about Cameron Brown. You said that you are not concerned about Cameron Brown. Therefore, you have nothing meaningful to contribute here. So PISS OFF!Ken, you ain't welcome here.Translated, you lost our debate, and can't take it any more.
You proved squat. Now STFU and GTFOOH!If you were serious about all the issues you prattle on about, you would be SUPPORTING Cameron Brown -- who has done you ABSOLUTELY NO WRONG! -- and not piling on.I proved otherwise, but you censored my answer. Wattashock.
Ted: Ken, you ain't welcome here.
Translated, you lost our debate, and can't take it any more.
Ted: If you were serious about all the issues you prattle on about, you would be SUPPORTING Cameron Brown -- who has done you ABSOLUTELY NO WRONG! -- and not piling on.
I proved otherwise, but you censored my answer. Wattashock.
Ken, you ain't welcome here. Time to move on.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Twaddle. If you were serious about all the issues you prattle on about, you would be SUPPORTING Cameron Brown -- who has done you ABSOLUTELY NO WRONG! -- and not piling on. As it is, you are kidding NO ONE (except perhaps yourself). Now STFU and GTFOOH! Loser.You're not fighting for freedom, you're fighting for Ken Smith.It's the magic of our system: When we fight for ourselves, we fight for our brothers.
I know this is a tough concept for you, but if you want to succeed, you have to dream big. Here is one of your fellow religious nut-jobs on hunting grizzlies:
Grizzly hunting is expensive. Yep, this sport of kings is not cheap. Just the equipment costs and travel expenses needed to get to where Ursus arctos horribilis dwells costs more than most are willing to spend on a hunt. Fortunately for my wallet and wife, this hunt was gifted to me.His reference to "cheap punks" suggests that he knows you personally.
However, there were other costs involved that didn’t entail the outlay of Benjamins, such as the mental and physical costs of hunting deadly game in adverse surroundings. Both the animal and the elements can kill you. You need to be okay with that and willing to ante up and do whatever needs to be done in order to get your trophy.
What’s the life lesson to be gleaned here, my little children? If you want a truly awesome “trophy” it will exact from you a pound of flesh. The best and baddest in life always demand the massive expenditure of the mind, will and emotions. A great nation, marriage or a functional family will cost you retail in blood, sweat and tears. If you’re going to get your “grizzly” in life then you need to realize it’ll cost you dearly and demand an extravagant expenditure of your time, talent and treasure. Period. Great things are expensive in fifty different ways. You’ve got to pay the dues if you wanna sing the blues, and you know it don’t come easy. Cheap punks need not apply.
Here's some more Frederick Douglass. It is self-evident that he would not accept your coward's counsel:
"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." ...Frederick Douglass, [1857] (1985). "The Significance of Emancipation in the West Indies." Speech, Canandaigua, New York, August 3, 1857; collected in pamphlet by author. In The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Volume 3: 1855-63. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 204.
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North, and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages, and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others."
I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.Once again, Jesus proved his impotence. We must help ourselves, or go without. And let us not neglect Wilberforce:
“Let everyone regulate his conduct . . . by the golden rule of doing to others as in similar circumstances we would have them do to us, and the path of duty will be clear before him.”It is truly a pity that you fail to even attempt to live your life by this metric, Ted.
Ted: You're not fighting for freedom, you're fighting for Ken Smith.
It's the magic of our system: When we fight for ourselves, we fight for our brothers. Ever heard of a man named Clarence Gideon? Gideon fought an objectively hopeless battle, and he fought it for himself; Cam Brown is a direct beneficiary of his efforts. Ask Team Geragos next time you see them.
Our system won't even let you fight unless you have a dog in the hunt. The concept is called "standing." The idea is that, if I don't have something to lose, I won't fight as hard as someone who does. I don't have standing to challenge Hurtado, but Cam might.
Ted: When you finally figure out (if ever) that cooperation works far better than your scorched-earth approach, you just might have some success.
You mean, like the Iranian people being shot down by their own dictators? Frederick Douglass put it this way: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." While I am cooperating with fellow Greens -- and we are stronger together than apart -- the mullahs in black robes aren't of a mind to cooperate. After all, just like the slave-owners Douglass opposed, they understand that they have the guns, and I don't. My only weapons are moral suasion and scorched-earth tactics.
My goal is to show that the system is broken. The only way that you can do that is to do everything possible to allow the system to right itself.
Cam Brown doesn't have the standing to do that, because Geragos won't file a habeas action. He has repeatedly thrown up the white flag -- waiving his right to a speedy trial, letting them drag this saga out interminably -- thereby giving the bastards an out. "If you had just done what the law lets you do, you might have X." They can't say that with me, because I have played every conceivable card.
Now, by confirming the results of election, by limiting the extent of investigation in a manner that the outcome will not be changed, even though in more than 170 branches the number of cast votes was more than 100% of eligible voters of the riding, the heads of the state have accepted the responsibility of what has happened during the election.-- Mir Hossein Mousavi, 20 Jun. 2009
In these conditions, we are asked to follow our complaints via the Guardian council, while this council has proven its bias, not only before and during, but also after the election. The first principle of judgment is to be impartial.
Even the Iranians get it, Ted. Why can't you?
[drivel elided]
Edited By Siteowner
Ken Smith wrote:
People are willing to die for a chance at freedom ( [url elided] ). How dare you disparage me for fighting for it?You're not fighting for freedom, you're fighting for Ken Smith. When you finally figure out (if ever) that cooperation works far better than your scorched-earth approach, you just might have some success.
People are willing to die for a chance at freedom ( [url elided] ). How dare you disparage me for fighting for it?
[abusive disparaging remark elided]
Edited By Siteowner
I grow weary of Ken Smith. Accordingly, I just poofed a right load of nonsense (contained in several messages) by him.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:So where's the personal attack? (Aside from the ones that your posts are rife with?)Ken Smith wrote:Errrrr, what was that you were saying some months ago about personal attacks constituting proof that you were losing an argument?Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:They were sane.You're no Wilberforce or Douglass.And the salient difference is?
Ted: You're no Wilberforce or Douglass.
Ken: And the salient difference is?
Ted slandered: They were sane.
Errrrr, what was that you were saying some months ago about personal attacks constituting proof that you were losing an argument?
Tahiti Ted: You're no Wilberforce or Douglass."I am not quite yet insane." -- William Wilberforce.
Ken: And the salient difference is?
Tahiti Ted slandered: They were sane.
Like Wilberforce, I am viciously and maliciously slandered for my views (and presumably, my refusal to suck Ted's god's diseased donkey-dick).
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:They were sane.You're no Wilberforce or Douglass.And the salient difference is?
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
— Margaret Mead
To this, Ted, I would also add that the law is about abstract principles. In my case, the question is whether public officials are answerable to the law. It doesn't matter if a public servant orders a psychiatric examination or prosecutes a man for a murder he didn't commit; if public officials cannot be held accountable for what Prince Hamlet referred to as the "insolence of office," we are not governed in accordance with the rule of law, but are in fact governed by men. This is what is being litigated in my cases.
If you find this state of affairs acceptable, then kindly STFU about your (alleged) baby-killin' brudder-in-law's travails. He has entered into a deal with the devil, and the Leviathan of the State has every right to do whatever it wishes ... because, as you pointed out, "they have the guns."
Ted: You're no Wilberforce or Douglass.
And the salient difference is? From one of your religious drooler sites:
In May 1789, William Wilberforce began the war against slavery which was to be not only his legacy but also his lifelong fight. It took 18 years to win the first phase: making slavery illegal. However, it took nearly 50 years, many setbacks, and withstanding much criticism to finally achieve his goal: the abolition of slavery in England.Despite all this, he soldiered on in his objectively hopeless and quixotic quest. And no doubt, he endured a slew of mendacious and malicious Ted Kaldises of his own, who counseled him more than once to simply give up. But despite all this, he kept on fighting.
This is just one example of Wilberforce’s persevering character. While we can imagine the perseverance required to continue such a long fight, we gain more insight as we look at the obstacles he faced.
1. Wilberforce’s opponents had a massive stake in the slave trade. [Federal judges have a massive stake in maintaining absolute despotic power.]
2. On a more personal front Wilberforce faced public criticism and vicious slander. [Kind of like the vicious slander you have subjected me to.]
3. Even more personal were William’s family trials. While Wilberforce stood strong under great trial and personal attack, his wife worried herself into poor mental and physical health. [While I can withstand the slings and arrows I face, it was spectacularly selfish for Wilberforce to put his wife under that kind of stress.]
4. And, most personal of all, William fought with serious health issues enhanced, rather than helped, by the medical treatment of his day.
We are also told that his son left the faith. And that makes perfect sense: When your god can't deliver, it's time to fire him.
What a man! What a tool in God’s hands for the good of humanity. What will they say about you after you die?What will they say about you, you miserable son-of-a-bitch? What will your life stand for, Ted?
As Tom Tancredo told me [quote from memory], "God never promised that we would succeed. All He asked is that we do our best." If you stand for nothing, you are nothing ... and you are most certainly less than nothing. I truly feel sorry for you, you witless, soulless creature.
Ken Smith wrote:
Precisely how would you have counseled William Wilberforce? Frederick Douglass?You're no Wilberforce or Douglass.
Ken: Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?' This is a purely theological question, indisputably outside of the courts' bailiwick.That's why it is "theology" -- it doesn't matter what you say.
Ted: I disagree. This is NO theological question. (Besides, even if it was, it STILL doesn't matter what I say. God doesn't kowtow to me, any more than He does to Ken Smith.)
A yes or no answer -- with an appropriate explanation as to why you chose it -- will do.
Ted: Who says they can't be questioned? It seems to me that you've been to court many, many times already. My complaint with you isn't that you shouldn't seek redress for your grievances, but rather that you shouldn't do so WITH AN OBVIOUS LOSING EFFORT. Moreover, you shouldn't press this losing effort FAR beyond all reason
You are not capable of reason, and don't have the first fucking clue as to legal theory or what the Framers intended. Your ignorance would still fill the Grand Canyon, despite my many efforts to inform and educate you. Here's the bottom line: Either we enjoy the rule of law, or suffer the rule of judges.
You counsel that we should always acquiesce to tyrants, because they have the guns and you don't. And your counsel to the good people of Iran is?
Criticism only becomes "constructive" if you have a viable alternative to advance. You don't.
Ted: . And you shouldn't berate those who are trying to talk some sense into you (which includes MANY others besides me).
Precisely how would you have counseled William Wilberforce? Frederick Douglass? As near as I can determine, your rule of decision is that we should invariably acquiesce meekly to tyranny ... with the obvious exception for (alleged) baby-killin' brudder-in-laws.
And who are these "others," Ted? I have never met anyone who thinks it kosher for a judge to decide a case in which she is the defendant ... except you. And of course, your rules always have Cam Brown Exceptions.
I have berated you for your hypocrisy, dishonesty, evasiveness, mendacity, stupidity, and other deplorable qualities. I have never berated you for your reasoning, as you have never shown me that you are even capable of rational thought.
Ken Smith wrote:
If our public officials can't be questioned,Who says they can't be questioned? It seems to me that you've been to court many, many times already. My complaint with you isn't that you shouldn't seek redress for your grievances, but rather that you shouldn't do so WITH AN OBVIOUS LOSING EFFORT. Moreover, you shouldn't press this losing effort FAR beyond all reason. And you shouldn't berate those who are trying to talk some sense into you (which includes MANY others besides me).
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wroteI disagree. This is NO theological question. (Besides, even if it was, it STILL doesn't matter what I say. God doesn't kowtow to me, any more than He does to Ken Smith.)Ken Smith wrote:I disagree, Ted. For instance, the answer to this question is completely independent of what a court might say: Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?' This is a purely theological question, indisputably outside of the courts' bailiwick.So, why can't you answer my questions honestly and forthrightly, Ted?Because it DOESN'T MATTER what I say.
Ken: So, why can't you answer my questions honestly and forthrightly, Ted?I disagree, Ted. For instance, the answer to this question is completely independent of what a court might say: Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?' This is a purely theological question, indisputably outside of the courts' bailiwick.
Ted: Because it DOESN'T MATTER what I say.
Ted: It matters what THE COURT says -- and they have already spoken. And, THEY HAVE THE GUNS! Remember?That argument blazes new trails in lunacy, even for you. You have whined ad nauseum about the supposedly irregular decisions of Judge Arnold, and even taken issue with hidebound USSC cases like Hurtado. You and I both know that the only reason for your self-imposed moratorium is that it prevents you from having to admit that you are wrong --and you would rather cut your nuts off than do that.
Think about it. How can we question the decision to indict? "They have the guns, and they have already spoken." How can we question the Daubert motion? "They have the guns, and they have already spoken." And how can we question the decision not to accommodate the "please don't die" guy? "They have the guns, and they have already spoken." If our public officials can't be questioned, it makes for a pretty dull blog.
Ken Smith wrote:
So, why can't you answer my questions honestly and forthrightly, Ted?Because it DOESN'T MATTER what I say. It matters what THE COURT says -- and they have already spoken. And, THEY HAVE THE GUNS! Remember?
Ted: Ken, the fundamental question in your case is, simply: Does the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board have, in the course of performing their duties, the authority to ask a candidate to submit to a psychological examination? The answer to this question seems to be "Yes" (an answer that you obviously don't like).
It depends ... on whether the rule of law is to be honored (an answer that YOU obviously don't like). The federal Americans With Disabilities Act (which every state agency must follow by virtue of the Supremacy Clause) does not permit states to discriminate against persons protected under that statute (which, by its terms, includes me). If California could not even impose a $6 charge for a handicapped placard, Dare v. State of California, 191 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1999), Colorado certainly could not require me to pay $6,000 out of my own pocket for a psychiatric examination as a condition precedent to admission. And that's just for starters.
Let's compare this to Cam's case. Cameron Brown is being lawfully detained. It is constitutional for a person accused of murder to be detained pending trial, on the grounds that he is a natural flight risk. While he does have a constitutional right to a speedy trial, he keeps waiving his rights and as such, you have no credible legal ground for whining about his continued incarceration. And as for probable cause that he murdered Lauren, a grand jury DID indict him, and on the face of it, there is more than sufficient reason to believe that he might have done it (which is all it takes). The fact that Geragos hasn't filed a habeas action is proof positive to any reasonable person that there is no material impropriety in the current state of affairs (apart from the tawdry attempt to frame him on a bogus weapons charge, which any decent person would abjure). Cam's case already went to trial, where ten of twelve jurors were prepared to convict him on Murder Two; that is further compelling evidence that probable cause exists. While there might have been irregularities in Cam's first trial, that is hardly surprising, as there are irregularities in every trial.
You have no credible cause for complaint regarding the alleged partiality of Judge Arnold, as you refuse to acknowledge any problem with the spectacle of a judge deciding a case wherein she is a defendant, despite the fact that sixteen other judges were available and authorized by law to hear it, and reams of hidebound United States Supreme Court precedent asserting that that is a self-evident violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment right to have your case heard by a fair and independent tribunal.
The fundamental question in this dispute is whether you have even a shred of personal honor or integrity, and it has been answered conclusively in the negative through your conduct here.
So, why can't you answer my questions honestly and forthrightly, Ted? I'm always able to answer yours.
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted, I still have two questions I'd like you to answer. [...][Crickets chirping ...]
Ken, the fundamental question in your case is, simply: Does the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board have, in the course of performing their duties, the authority to ask a candidate to submit to a psychological examination? The answer to this question seems to be "Yes" (an answer that you obviously don't like). All the rest is beside the point.
Ted, I still have two questions I'd like you to answer. First, I would like you to coherently explain, using the rules which have been reiterated for about the fortieth time by the United States Supreme Court in Caperton, how it does not violate the Due Process Clause for a defendant in a case to decide it where (1) s/he is a defendant in tort in that suit, (2) the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, (3) at least sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and (4) the appeal is statutorily required to be heard by another court.
Second, kindly answer my other outstanding simple question: Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'
You and I both know that you won't answer, because you are too PROUD to admit that you have been wrong. It takes cojones the size of church bells to counsel someone else to swallow his pride whilst you are choking on your own. Webster has you pegged:
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite Listen to the pronunciation of hypocrite
Pronunciation: ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
Photo: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ran...r57/ TED_AUS.jpg
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Ted: [abusive diatribe elided]
Since every word was true, it's not "abusive," according to your Buddha look-alike.
Ken: Ted doesn't seem to think that it is the slightest bit unfair for a judge to sit in judgment of his own case.I don't honestly know, Ted. Unless your name is Anna Nicole Smith or Exxon-Mobil, the United States Supreme Court is some fresh-faced 25-year-old kid out of Harvard who has never held an honest job in his life:
Ted: Certainly you brought this up to the U.S. Supreme Court when you filed your cert petition. How did they seem to feel about it?
A related reason for the hesitancy of law clerks to recommend granting a case may be due to relative inexperience. Incoming law clerks, often fresh off of a clerkship with a judge on the United States Courts of Appeals, have little training and even less experience screening petitions for certiorari. While it is true that outgoing clerks attempt to stagger their departures to serve as sounding boards for the new crop of clerks, much of the screening work is done during the summer months, when the Justices are not regularly inside the building. Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, himself a former law clerk to Justice Powell, has referred to the certiorari review process as a "baptism by fire" for new law clerks.David R. Stras, The Supreme Court’s Gatekeepers: The Role of Law Clerks in the Certiorari Pro cess, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 947, 975 (2007); see also, H.W. Perry, Deciding to Decide: Agenda-Setting in the United States Supreme Court 65 (1994) (memos only written in only half of the cases reviewed by Justice Stevens’ clerks).
A denial of certiorari is not a decision on the merits. Moreover, as the decision in question is null and void as a matter of law, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980) (judgment “rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering state and not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere"), technically speaking, the matter the court purported to decide has not been adjudicated. See also, Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 353 (1920) ("Courts are constituted by authority and they can not go beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.")
The Court's position is pretty clear. Just this past week, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), the United States Supreme Court made the following salient observations:
[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” …Caperton, slip op. at 6, 16 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level. …
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal.
It is difficult to imagine any fact situation any more extraordinary or extreme than a judge deciding a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, at least sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal is statutorily required to be heard by another court, which are the salient (and, judicially noticeable) facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055).
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted doesn't seem to think that it is the slightest bit unfair for a judge to sit in judgment of his own case.Certainly you brought this up to the U.S. Supreme Court when you filed your cert petition. How did they seem to feel about it?
Ted: Ken, stuff it already. You've been to at least 5 differents courts, and haven't been able to get any traction in any of them. It's long past time to move on already. Or else, get a new strategy (and I don't mean in court -- you've pissed all of them off already).
[abusive diatribe elided]
anony: Hmmm, if you knew the back story in Cam's case you would realize that you are talking about Judge Arnold. What's more Judge Arnold and Craig Hum made an extra effort to get the case to Judge Arnold's court.
[overwhelming sarcasm] I don't know why you're complaining, anony. Ted doesn't seem to think that it is the slightest bit unfair for a judge to sit in judgment of his own case. Even if Judge Arnold and Judge Pastor are "bought and paid for," you must accept whatever comes. Why should I care, if your Buddha doesn't? [back to usual sarcasm]
Edited By Siteowner
[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in a case.Hmmm, if you knew the back story in Cam's case you would realize that you are talking about Judge Arnold. What's more Judge Arnold and Craig Hum made an extra effort to get the case to Judge Arnold's court.
Ken Smith wrote:
[blah, blah, blah ...]Ken, stuff it already. You've been to at least 5 differents courts, and haven't been able to get any traction in any of them. It's long past time to move on already. Or else, get a new strategy -- and I don't mean in court (you've pissed all of them off already). And anyway, THEY have guns, and you don't. Remember?
Ted: Get real. You've been in Federal District Court, Colorado District Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court, and have filed a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court several times. Losing your case (or having the court decline to hear it) is NOT being denied the rule of law.
In point of fact, it is. I have never had any of my claims heard on the merits. “To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself.” Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1884). As long as a case is justiciable -- and a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute directly and specially affecting you always is, D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) -- the denial of a forum is denial of the protection of the rule of law. The rule of law is our only shield against what Prince Hamlet described as "the insolence of office." Hamlet, Act III, sc. 1, iirc.
Ted: You have only the right to have access to the courts -- NOT the "right" to win.
What I do have is the right to have my case heard by a fair and independent tribunal, and this right has heretofore been denied. I'll repeat myself:
Just this past week, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), the United States Supreme Court made the following salient observations:Now, kindly explain how, using the rules which have been reiterated for about the fortieth time by the United States Supreme Court in Caperton, it does not violate the Due Process Clause for a defendant in a case to decide it. Cite any case law you like (hint: there isn't any, as this practice isn't even allowed in Third World shitholes like Fiji and Micronesia).[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” …Caperton, slip op. at 6, 16 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level. …
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal.
It is difficult to imagine any fact situation any more extraordinary or extreme than a judge deciding a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, at least sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal is statutorily required to be heard by another court, which are the salient (and, judicially noticeable) facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055).
You won't answer ... because you are too PROUD to admit that you have been wrong. And while you're at it, kindly answer my other outstanding question: Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'
Stick to telephone repair. You're no damned good at either theology or law.
Ken Smith wrote:
You who would not afford me the benefit of the rule of law ...Get real. You've been in Federal District Court, Colorado District Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court, and have filed a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court several times. Losing your case (or having the court decline to hear it) is NOT being denied the rule of law. You have only the right to have access to the courts -- NOT the "right" to win. There is NO such right, no matter how much you clamour for it.
Ken Smith wrote:
And to top it off, as others have observed, you appear to be mentally ill."Others"? You mean the fictitious wife of a convicted garage burglar. (I could note here what the Colorado Bar Examiners observed, but I've done it so many times that everybody knows already anyway, so what's the point?)
Ted: And to top it all off, you mercilessly berate anyone who might have the temerity to point this OBVIOUS REALITY out to you.
Let's see, now ... I have repeatedly berated you for being a major-league asshole, a flaming hypocrite, blindingly stupid, sociopathic, and fundamentally dishonest. You are without morals, character, or principles. And to top it off, as others have observed, you appear to be mentally ill.
I have never berated you for your opinion per se, nor have I ever needed to.
I came across this in my research. You might actually learn something, Ted.
The mortal threat to a government occurs when people come together around one individual, raising that individual over his or her rivals and creating dangerous political inequality and thus faction, which, of course, leads to war. While people look to this ambitious individual to easily satisfy their desires with private favors such as helping them with money or defending them from others, the ulterior motive of the individual who offers such favors, of course, is to make partisans, who will make him leader over the government; in other words, partisans give rise to tyranny. In Robert Bolt's A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, the villain Cromwell explained the concept of partisans - and bureaucracy:You who would not afford me the benefit of the rule of law have no standing to whine when Cam does not receive it. Let him burn, Ted! And if there is a just God, you will be the next."It's much more a matter of convenience, administrative convenience. The normal aim of administration is to keep steady this factor of convenience…Now normally when a man wants to change his woman, you let him if it's convenient and prevent him if it's not - normally indeed it's of so little importance that you leave it to the priests. But the constant factor is this element of convenience… However, in the present instance the man who wants to change his woman is our Sovereign Lord, Harry, by the Grace of God, the Eighth of that name. Which is a quaint way of saying that if he wants to change his woman he will. So that becomes the constant factor. And our job as administrators is to make it as convenient as we can…"This is the core horror of corruption: all it takes is one person to enact a government's ruin; as Galadriel, Elven Queen of J.R.R. Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS, acknowledged: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." In order to remain free of corruption, much less survive, a government must concentrate on its leaders and ensure that political equality is maintained among them. Corruption must be managed: easier said than done, but an answer. As war breeds corruption, and corruption breeds war, they are causes and not excuses for the inevitable tyranny that follows them.
To save a corrupted government, Machiavelli demanded complete renovation, a new law and order. This sounds like revolution, a dangerous creature, as a speech in Bolt's play illustrated:MORE: "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?…[W]hen the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" [ http://www.usfca.edu/pj/killdem_lula.htm ]
Ted: THEY have the guns, and you don't.
And if you don't challenge them, they always will. Perhaps you can live as a slave; you already are a slave to your alcohol, religion, and bulk cookies. I can't. As Ronald Reagan put it, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." The animating contest for freedom never ceases.
That you are too fuckin' stupid to see that speaks volumes. You really do need to spend less time masturbating into your Bible and more on more edifying pursuits.
Ted: Ken, we've been through this before, ad nauseum. In case you haven't noticed, there really isn't any "animated contest of freedom" being fought today. Which STILL leaves you with one overpowering and insurmountable reality, the significance and consequence of which continues to elude you: THEY have the guns, and you don't.And I suppose that you have given Cam the exact same advice? In case you hadn't noticed, the Camster could have pled out to manslaughter, done a year or so in the stir, and have been back out on the street ALMOST FIVE YEARS AGO! And think of the attorneys' fees you would have saved! But of course, it's always different when it is you and yours, hypocrite.
So what are you going to do about it? Bleat interminably about how you were somehow done wrong, while quixotically fighting a losing war that you can NEVER win? A war that with every losing battle, you more irrevocably cement your original defeat? Sorry, not for me. Life's too short.
And in the meanwhile, you are perceived (CORRECTLY, in my estimation) as an obstinate, irksome crank who's missing a few marbles. And to top it all off, you mercilessly berate anyone who might have the temerity to point this OBVIOUS REALITY out to you.
If the fight isn't worth fighting, would you kindly explain this ridiculous whine?
Recent readings of the cases discussed at The Innocence Project website , and others, has enhanced our curiosity with respect to seeing the violators pay for their deliberate efforts to deny fairness and civil rights to defendants who are being wrongly convicted of crimes. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld should be repeatedly applauded for their work in getting the innocent out of jail, but who is taking this bull by the horns to see that those who violated law along the way are being held accountable?Ted, do you even have the first fuckin' clue as to just how RIDICULOUS that that sounds, coming from you? Sometimes, Ted, I think that even you are embarrassed as to what kind of dumbfuck you sound like. But when I start to wonder, you pig-headedly insist upon displaying your room-temperature I.Q. There's a reason why you lost 99% of your arguments on USENET.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please visit sites that are concerned about protecting the civil rights of those being wrongfully prosecuted and convicted and remember that as long as we turn a blind eye toward justice we are opening the potential that the next person prosecuted wrongly for a felony could be YOU! As proven by Cam Brown, all it takes is a very unfortunate accident and investigators willing to lie and cover up exculpatory evidence in order to make someone pay. ....
Please visit their site and take an interest in protecting the integrity of our criminal justice system. Please help in any way you can to make sure no other person is held to pay for a crime they didn't commit.
Let me repeat the important part for the drooling religious nutters with three neurons left out there: "as we turn a blind eye toward justice we are opening the potential that the next person ... could be YOU!" Give it up, man! As you say, "Life's too short." Cut that little maggot Cam Brown loose, and take five weeks' vacation in Australia. I've done it what, eight or nine times? Advise Patty to serve the papers. Get on with your sorry-ass lives! PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!
Unlike you, Ted, I actually have moral standards. To be what I would have to become to survive as an attorney under the system as it now exists would destroy too much of what I am as a person. Performing fellatio on judges just isn't my cup of tea; under the status quo, it's just not worth it. The only salient difference between a prosecutor and one of Ed Nottingham's high-priced courtesans is that the latter is honest about what she is doing. To thine own self be true....
Get your head screwed on, Ted! Better yet, ask CI and Patty to do it for you.
Ken Smith wrote:
[blah, blah, blah ...]Ken, we've been through this before, ad nauseum. In case you haven't noticed, there really isn't any "animated contest of freedom" being fought today. Which STILL leaves you with one overpowering and insurmountable reality, the significance and consequence of which continues to elude you: THEY have the guns, and you don't.
So what are you going to do about it? Bleat interminably about how you were somehow done wrong, while quixotically fighting a losing war that you can NEVER win? A war that with every losing battle, you more irrevocably cement your original defeat? Sorry, not for me. Life's too short.
And in the meanwhile, you are perceived (CORRECTLY, in my estimation) as an obstinate, irksome crank who's missing a few marbles. And to top it all off, you mercilessly berate anyone who might have the temerity to point this OBVIOUS REALITY out to you.
Get your head screwed on.
Ted: THAT is what they tried to teach. But you haven't learned it yet. Because you obviously STILL don't understand who are the chiefs, and who is the indian.
While you at liberty to assert that position, you are constrained to accept the fact that that rule applies WITH EQUAL FORCE to Cameron Brown. Danny Smith, Craig Hum, Judge Arnold, and the gang down at the courthouse and their friends in the upper crust of RPV society are the chiefs, and Cam is a lowly indian stevedore. Accordingly, Cam DESERVES to be scalped, by your metric.
As for me, I actually believe that it is "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Declaration of Independence (U.S. 1776) para. 2. And unlike you, I am prepared to fight for it. I don't accept that there ought to be one set of laws for the chiefs and another for the indians, and assert that we dishonor our forebears when we acquiesce meekly to tyranny, as you would counsel.
That divide is an inescapable by-product of our religious views. Whereas I am a deist, you are a Christian cultist who believes that God did not create all men equal but rather, created a class you call the "Elect"; the rest of us are mere cosmic sex-toys, to be abused at your god's leisure. As it would seem that your precious Cameron is one of those cosmic sex-toys, and this was predestined to happen, it hardly seems that you have cause to complain about his circumstances. The irony is truly delicious: Your pride won't permit you to admit that you were wrong and yet, you have the temerity to lecture me on being too prideful?
If you drank a little less and read a little more Sam Adams, you might recall this famous quote:
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."Simply put, you are the most repulsive piece of sub-human filth I have ever encountered, Ted. And remember: I've met Bob Larson.
Based upon your own actions, you are not a true believer; how can you be a credible witness for your god? You would do everyone a favor if you would take your Holy Shit and shove it back up your corpulent ass.
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:THAT is what they tried to teach. But you haven't learned it yet. Because you obviously STILL don't understand who are the chiefs, and who is the indian.You need to get over your pride and learn humility. The Colorado Bar Examiners' Board tried to teach you some, Judges Nottingham and Bayless tried to teach you some, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals tried to teach you some, and the Colorado Supreme Court tried to teach you some. Unfortuntely, it seems that it didn't take.Precisely what did they try to "teach" ... other than "I have a gun, and you don't?"
Ted: You need to get over your pride and learn humility. The Colorado Bar Examiners' Board tried to teach you some, Judges Nottingham and Bayless tried to teach you some, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals tried to teach you some, and the Colorado Supreme Court tried to teach you some. Unfortuntely, it seems that it didn't take.Precisely what did they try to "teach" ... other than "I have a gun, and you don't?"
Just this past week, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), the United States Supreme Court made the following salient observations:
[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest” in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would cer tainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, cor rupt his integrity.” …Caperton, slip op. at 6, 16 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
On these extreme facts the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitu tional level. …
Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Consti tution requires recusal.
It is difficult to imagine any fact situation any more extraordinary or extreme than a judge deciding a case in which s/he is a defendant in tort, the plaintiff is asking for roughly $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages, at least sixteen ‘non-conflicted’ judges are available and authorized by law to hear the matter, and the appeal is statutorily required to be heard by another court, which are the salient (and, judicially noticeable) facts of Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1067 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2006) (No. 05-1055).
Taken together, the rule of law precipitated is that, provided that you have enough money to afford the services of former Solicitor General Theodore K. Olson, a state judge must recuse himself if “the prob ability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level,” Caperton, slip op. at 16 … but if you are a man of modest means who is forced to approach that Court in propria persona out of brute necessity, the Due Process Clause will not even afford you the barest protection of “the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has ‘a direct, personal, substantial, pecu niary interest’ in a case.” Id., slip op. at 6 (citation omitted).
Precisely what am I supposed to "learn" from this, Ted? Explain to me how this objectively shocking state of affairs this constitutes "justice" and/or "equal protection of law" and further, why I am supposed to accept this manifest injustice without objection and yet, cry for your (alleged) baby-killing brudder-in-law?
And while you're at it, kindly answer my other outstanding question: Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'
We both know that you can't answer these simple and straightforward questions without swallowing your pride....
Ken: Predestination is an inescapable part of Christian theology
Ted: If only you could understand what "predestination" really means.
From Webster's Online: "the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation." http://www.merriam-webster.com/d.../ predestinationTed: You are OBVIOUSLY a "know-it-all" who thinks he knows everything.
Exactly what am I supposed to not "know" here? The word means what it means, and conveys the thought it is supposed to convey. Romans 8:28, et seq. indisputably teaches that "salvation" is predestined for certain people, and not others. The only Christians who disavow that conclusion do so only because to concede that inarguable point requires them to lose theological arguments ... something they are too proud to do.
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. -- Mark TwainTed: As such, it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach you anything. You need to get over your pride and learn humility.
Coming from an obsessed religious crackpot who maintains that he is so important to the functioning of the Universe that it simply cannot get along without him and therefore, that it is logical to believe in an afterlife, such a comment is plainly risible. Sadly, your ignorance covers the whole earth like a blanket, and there is hardly a hole in it anywhere. Based on your life and in particular, how you have conducted yourself in my presence, you have nothing to teach about religion that I have any pressing need to learn.
If a man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man, but it would deteriorate the cat. -- Mark Twain
Ken Smith wrote:
Predestination is an inescapable part of Christian theologyIf only you could understand what "predestination" really means.
You are OBVIOUSLY a "know-it-all" who thinks he knows everything. As such, it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach you anything. You need to get over your pride and learn humility. The Colorado Bar Examiners' Board tried to teach you some, Judges Nottingham and Bayless tried to teach you some, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals tried to teach you some, and the Colorado Supreme Court tried to teach you some. Unfortuntely, it seems that it didn't take.
Ted: Either that, or (more likely) you misunderstood what they said. Christianity is open to ALL, in the sense that you don't have to be a member of a particular class or caste (or whatever) -- an idea that even YOU tried to promote -- or, you don't need to possess some sort of special "illumination", in order to come to God.
Again, it would appear that Rom. 8:28, et seq. have been excised from Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-FUCKED Bible. Paul wrote what he wrote, and there is no reason that he didn't mean what he said. Predestination is an inescapable part of Christian theology.
Hare Christian! Hare Christian! Christian, Christian! Hare, Hare! One day, you will learn that context is important.
Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. [2 Cor. 4:1-2]Even if the "mystery" you speak of had not been revealed before, someone revealed the TM mantra, and it couldn't be described as esoteric. Stupid? Perhaps. Esoteric? No.
As for 1 Cor 2:6-7, it lends further credence to the conclusion that membership in the Elect was predestined. Double-plus-ungood for your argument.
Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. [Eph. 3:2-6]If it was a "mystery" before, it seems that somebody spilled the beans. Again.
I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [Col. 1:25-27]Again, note the past tense. This is some staggeringly bad eisegesis on your part, Ted.
Ken Smith wrote:
It's sad, really. Bob Larson's theology was more coherent, and that takes some doing.The Wisdom of God is regarded to be utter foolishness by those of this world.
Ken Smith wrote:
Really, Ted, I am disappointed in you.And I regard that as a feather in my cap!
Your simplistic and even Luddite view of your crackpot religion is unsupported by any semblance of credible scholarship.The Truths of God are simple in the sense that they will confound those who are wise in this world. They are to be SPIRITUALLY and NOT intellectually discerned. If you are looking to scholarship to understand them, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Ken Smith wrote:
We've already established that you are a cultist, and certainly so by Dr. Martin's definition.You have NOT established any such thing. You have only ASSERTED that this is so, but you have NOT been (nor will you ever be) able to demonstrate that such is the case. The idea that the Truths of the Bible are hidden from those who are lost is NOT some strange cultish doctrine, but rather is CENTRAL to Biblical Christianity. In fact, it is all over the Bible. Look at Mark 4:11-12, 1 Cor 2:6-7, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Eph. 3:3-5, Col 1:25-27, among MANY other Scriptures.
Accordingly, I repeat: if you have NOT received Christ as your Lord and Saviour, the essence of the Gospel is but a MYSTERY to you. (Indeed, it's the very reason that Christianity Today would not accept your articles.)
What I was taught was that Christianity was unique, in the sense that there was no esoteric knowledge that you had to wear sacred undies to discern.Then whoever taught you that was WRONG! Either that, or (more likely) you misunderstood what they said. Christianity is open to ALL, in the sense that you don't have to be a member of a particular class or caste (or whatever) -- an idea that even YOU tried to promote -- or, you don't need to possess some sort of special "illumination", in order to come to God.
But yet nevertheless, the spiritual mysteries are STILL hidden from you -- UNTIL God's Holy Spirit opens your understanding to them. Which He will do, if you are honest and sincere about finding God and believe that "He is the Rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". There is NOTHING esoteric about this doctrine. It is all over the Scripture, and is held by those who are in the mainstream of Biblical and evangelical Christianity.
Really, Ted, I am disappointed in you. Your simplistic and even Luddite view of your crackpot religion is unsupported by any semblance of credible scholarship. You can't fracture Jas. 4:17 enough to get to the answer you need, and you have to completely rewrite Rom. 8-9 to get within light years of your view on predestination. And this little gem of yours is two stars to the right of Shirley MacLaine, and on until morning:
Ted: Unless you have received His Spirit to guide you into all Truth and Righteousness (by receiving Him as your Lord and Saviour), it DOESN'T MATTER how earnestly and/or exhaustively you examine and study the Scriptures, you will be COMPLETELY UNABLE to discern the Truths thereof, for they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.It's sad, really. Bob Larson's theology was more coherent, and that takes some doing.
Ted: You snipped the most important part. God is BY DEFINITION Good.
That may very well be the case in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-FUCKED Dictionary, but the English definition of the word is a trifle more objective ... and devoid of circular reasoning.
Ted: And anyway, the Truths of the Scripture are but a mystery to you. It's the way that God has written the Bible. Unless you have received His Spirit to guide you into all Truth and Righteousness (by receiving Him as your Lord and Saviour), it DOESN'T MATTER how earnestly and/or exhaustively you examine and study the Scriptures, you will be COMPLETELY UNABLE to discern the Truths thereof, for they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED. So shut up already. Get back to me AFTER you have received Christ as your Lord, and then we'll have something to talk about.
We've already established that you are a cultist, and certainly so by Dr. Martin's definition. What I was taught was that Christianity was unique, in the sense that there was no esoteric knowledge that you had to wear sacred undies to discern. If the only way for me to come to your understanding of the Bible is to stick a baseball bat up my ass, you can understand if I choose to decline. Better to call Shirley MacLaine.
Ted: [Which is not to say that I haven't driven 95 in the I-25 corridor north of Denver. Or elsewhere. (Or if you want to see a REAL speedway, try I-15 between Victorville and Vegas.)]
I know it well. Goggles Paisano, like he's driving home on the freeway. Drafting is encouraged ... to save the ozone.
My point is made, based on your admissions. Better enforcement would discourage you, but it does not infringe upon your free will.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:You snipped the most important part. God is BY DEFINITION Good.Ken Smith wrote:[Blah, blah, blah ...]Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:No, the problem here is YOUR UNDERSTANDING (or more correctly, MISunderstanding) of James 4:17. This is a TERRIBLE exegesis.Who said that? God does NOT intervene in human affairs (at least, not without entreaties).The problem with that position is Jas. 4:17.
And anyway, the Truths of the Scripture are but a mystery to you. It's the way that God has written the Bible. Unless you have received His Spirit to guide you into all Truth and Righteousness (by receiving Him as your Lord and Saviour), it DOESN'T MATTER how earnestly and/or exhaustively you examine and study the Scriptures, you will be COMPLETELY UNABLE to discern the Truths thereof, for they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED. So shut up already. Get back to me AFTER you have received Christ as your Lord, and then we'll have something to talk about.
Ted: But YOU have the option of making such a decision. Why don't you avail yourself of the opportunity of making it,
Already did. Remember, once saved, always saved? I've also been washed in the Cream Gravy of the Kit'n Grrrrl. And even if I missed it on this path, the LDS Church is always on the case.
The only one I'm likely to be caught flat-footed on is Islam; hopefully, I will have enough time to do the confession on my deathbed.
Ken: The Bible-believing Christian [...] believes that one's "salvation" is necessarily predestined:[Sarcasm alert!] Unassailable argument, that. [/sarcasm]
Ted: Twaddle. This is the heresy espoused by doctrinaire Calvinists (which is basically a perversion of Calvin's true doctrine). Genuine Christians reject this nonsense, because it leads its adherents to become lazy elitist snobs.
First and foremost, how do you define "genuine Christians" without excluding yourself? You don't even pretend to practice Christendom in your w*rds *nd d**ds ("If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless." -- Jas. 1:26; "But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." -- Jas. 2:18 ). You KNOW that what I say is true; that is why you are so afraid of giving me the contact information for your pastor!
Second, what linguistic basis do you have for maintaining that Paul didn't mean what he said and say what he meant? The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation applies to the Bible, as well; the Biblical originalist is obliged to take the text as he finds it. It's not like some stray word in an obscure passage was amenable to an alternative interpretation; to disavow the doctrine of predestination, you have to rewrite a whole chapter! Either Paul meant what he said under the direction of the Holy Spirit in Rom. 8:28, et seq., or none of the NT is trustworthy! Sorry if you can't countenance the outcome, but scripture is like golf: You have to play the ball as it lies. Just take the unplayable; you're in a hole you can't dig out of.
Ted: Who said that? God does NOT intervene in human affairs (at least, not without entreaties).From Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary (excerpted at http://biblecommenter.com/james/4-17.htm ):
Ken: The problem with that position is Jas. 4:17.
Ted: No, the problem here is YOUR UNDERSTANDING (or more correctly, MISunderstanding) of James 4:17. This is a TERRIBLE exegesis.
Omissions are sins which will come into judgment, as well as commissions. He that does not the good he knows should be done, as well as he who does the evil he knows should not be done, will be condemned. Let us therefore take care that conscience be rightly informed, and then that it be faithfully and constantly obeyed; for, if our own hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God; but if we say, We see, and do not act suitably to our sight, then our sin remaineth, Jn. 9:41 ["Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains"].The straightforward interpretation of the passage is pretty much the standard, Ted. John Wesley's notes are in concurrence ("Therefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not - That knows what is right, and does not practise it. To him it is sin - This knowledge does not prevent, but increase, his condemnation."). I am not aware of any reputable commentator who fails to interpret Jas. 4:17 as written, and can see no compelling reason to conclude that they are wrong. I used the illustration of the two rape victims on Doug more than ten years ago: If your god intervenes in human affairs, then to intervene in the first and not intervene in the second is to sin. If it would be so for us, it certainly must be for your god.
Your god is a sinner in need of a Saviour[sic]. Don't you think you ought to save him first?
Ken Smith wrote:
And not unlike the four-year-old who play-tortures his toy soldiers, your god thinks nothing of tormenting certain souls throughout eternity, purportedly for not making a decision that they never had the option of making in the first place.But YOU have the option of making such a decision. Why don't you avail yourself of the opportunity of making it, while there is still time, instead of spending an eternity in torment?
Ken Smith wrote:
The Bible-believing Christian [...] believes that one's "salvation" is necessarily predestined:Twaddle. This is the heresy espoused by doctrinaire Calvinists (which is basically a perversion of Calvin's true doctrine). Genuine Christians reject this nonsense, because it leads its adherents to become lazy elitist snobs.
Ken Smith wrote:
there are laws against driving 95 mph down the I-25 corridor north of Denver, and a possibility of consequences for violating those laws, but that doesn't seem to stop Ted from indulging his leaden foot.That was SOUTH of Denver. If I recall correctly, it was between Colo. Springs & Pueblo. (I was on my way to New Mexico at the time.) And it was only 92, not 95.
[Which is not to say that I haven't driven 95 in the I-25 corridor north of Denver. Or elsewhere. (Or if you want to see a REAL speedway, try I-15 between Victorville and Vegas.)]
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:No, the problem here is YOUR UNDERSTANDING (or more correctly, MISunderstanding) of James 4:17. This is a TERRIBLE exegesis. God is BY DEFINITION Good.Who said that? God does NOT intervene in human affairs (at least, not without entreaties).The problem with that position is Jas. 4:17.
If God has the power to intervene in human affairsHe DID intervene -- He sent His Son [Jesus] as a sacrifice for our sins. And after Jesus was raised from the dead, He gave us His authority to exercise. If there is then a "failure" to act, it is OUR failure, not His.
And now, to a topic that is actually Cam-related: Sonia Sotomayor, and the slothful attitude our courts have toward actual justice. The NY Times is on the case:
“We have considered all of petitioner-appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit,” the ruling said.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/ 10dna.html?emc=eta1
Imprisoned at the age of 16 for the killing of a high school classmate, Mr. Deskovic, now 35, filed a habeas corpus petition in 1997 in Federal District Court contesting his conviction. The court denied the request because the paperwork had arrived four days late. Mr. Deskovic and one of his lawyers — who he said had been misinformed about the deadline for filing — appealed the decision to the federal appellate court on which Ms. Sotomayor sat.
Ms. Sotomayor, along with the other judge on the panel, ruled that the lawyer’s mistake did not “rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance” that would compel them to forgive the delay. There was no need to look at the evidence that Mr. Deskovic insisted would affirm his innocence, they said.
Mr. Deskovic spent six more years behind bars, until DNA found in the victim not only cleared him, but connected another man to the crime.
That phrase is so common that judicial reform advocates can recite it in our sleep. Unfortunately, the pdf of the DA office's post-mortem uses an old version, so you'll just have to read it yourselves. http://www.westchesterda.net/Jef...0Comm% 20Rpt.pdf
anonymous: How about God has given man free will
Just out of curiosity, which religion do you espouse? It couldn't be Biblical Christianity. The Bible-believing Christian (as opposed to the Tedist "Cafeteria Christian") believes that one's "salvation" is necessarily predestined:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.Rom. 8:29-30 (NIV) (no discernible difference in meaning in either the KJV or the Greek text). One of the problems of omnipotence is in knowing the outcome before it happens; if you don't have the capacity to surprise God, and all that you have seen is a part of you (fracturing Tennyson) -- our experiences have an overwhelming (if not utterly dispositive) influence on our beliefs and worldviews -- you do not have free will.
The definition of "justice" is objectively strained in Christian context:
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.Rom. 9:14-16 (NIV) (it's just a lot easier to read than the KJV). The divine despot of Christendom loved Jacob, but hated Esau ... on the face of it, the distinction appears arbitrary and capricious. Some people win the divine lottery; others merely end up as vulture food ( http://s641.photobucket.com/albu...e/ scottshot.jpg ). There is no concept of "justice" I can envision that can make me call the god of the Bible a just god.
Finally, the notion of free will -- at least, as it pertains to what matters -- is completely obliterated by Paul:
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"Rom. 9:17-19 (NIV). While it is true that Christendom's Cosmic Stalin would have the raw power to send Cam to the gulag -- if Cam is truly innocent, he has not shown even one iota of mercy -- the key question is whether such arbitrary and capricious conduct is "moral" or "just." If the Christian god is no different from Al'lah -- who can even lie, if it serves His purpose -- then morality and justice are illusory provincial concepts, and the only law is "might makes right and the ends justify the means."
Paul seems to answer this: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" Rom. 9:20 (NIV). Yes, the god of the Bible makes disposable people. And not unlike the four-year-old who play-tortures his toy soldiers, your god thinks nothing of tormenting certain souls throughout eternity, purportedly for not making a decision that they never had the option of making in the first place.
Ted, I would submit to you that your god is a sinner in need of a savior. Save him first, and get back to me.
Ted: Who said that? God does NOT intervene in human affairs (at least, not without entreaties).
The problem with that position is Jas. 4:17. If God has the power to intervene in human affairs (a given, for an omnipotent being) and does so on even an occasional basis (are you now denying even this, Ted?), his failure to act where action would objectively be warranted (e.g., in Cam's case, if the facts are as you proclaim them to be) and asked-for (now, don't tell me you haven't done that!) constitutes "sin," as the term is defined by that passage.
The concept of free will doesn't impact this equation in the slightest. For instance, there are laws against driving 95 mph down the I-25 corridor north of Denver, and a possibility of consequences for violating those laws, but that doesn't seem to stop Ted from indulging his leaden foot. While increased enforcement might deter him, he is nonetheless free to indulge.
The logic is as simple as it is inescapable.
There is no third option.How about God has given man free will and the ability to think, and man (specifically LA County personnel) has committed a grave injustice against Cam.
Ken Smith wrote:
After all, if Ted's god (a) intervenes in human affairsWho said that? God does NOT intervene in human affairs (at least, not without entreaties). That's why there is so much sin in the world.
Faulty premise: faulty conclusion, buckaroo.
Ken Smtih wrote:
Why was that deleted? It shows just how foolish Ted's position is,If you have to ask, you're farther gone than I thought. Those who live in glass houses ....
[deleted by case-insider's assistant]
Why was that deleted? It shows just how foolish Ted's position is, and does so in a straightforward way. After all, if Ted's god (a) intervenes in human affairs and (b) always acts in a just manner, it logically follows that the only explanation for Cam's situation is that he is in fact guilty, even if he is ultimately able to evade human justice. Conversely, if Cam is innocent, Ted's god is as powerful as a stone idol, as he has done nothing to help and if anything, has even exacerbated the situation. There is no third option.
Ted: God LOVES Ken Smith, and accordingly God provided His Own Son Christ Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of Ken Smith, so that Ken need not be damned to an eternity of torment in hell, but should rather gain entry to Heaven. Ken thus needs to receive the Sacrifice of Jesus and proclaim Him as Lord -- rather than doing the bidding of God's enemy satan, who UTTERLY DESPISES Ken and is [apparently successfully] deceiving Ken into rejecting Christ so that God would have no alternative than to cast Ken into eternal perdition.
Objection, non-responsive ... on second thought, it's downright hilarious. Are you, like, a Walrus Barbie doll? Pull your string, and we get gibberish?
I'll ask again. "Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'"
Your refusal to answer the question is in itself a confession: The only answer that could possibly exonerate your god is that Cam is actually guilty, but might well escape human justice, which is why your god is making sure he extracts his pound of flesh now.
[deleted by case-insider's assistant]
Edited By Siteowner
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:God need not respond to Ken Smith. Rather, Ken Smith needs to respond to God.God is not accountable to Ken Smith. Rather, Ken Smith IS accountable to God.Objection, non-responsive.
God LOVES Ken Smith, and accordingly God provided His Own Son Christ Jesus as a sacrifice for the sins of Ken Smith, so that Ken need not be damned to an eternity of torment in hell, but should rather gain entry to Heaven. Ken thus needs to receive the Sacrifice of Jesus and proclaim Him as Lord -- rather than doing the bidding of God's enemy satan, who UTTERLY DESPISES Ken and is [apparently successfully] deceiving Ken into rejecting Christ so that God would have no alternative than to cast Ken into eternal perdition.
Ted: God is not accountable to Ken Smith. Rather, Ken Smith IS accountable to God.
Objection, non-responsive.
"Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'"
Your refusal to answer the question is in itself a confession: The only answer that could possibly exonerate your god is that Cam is actually guilty, but might well escape human justice, which is why your god is making sure he extracts his pound of flesh now.
[deleted by case-insider's assistant]
Edited By Siteowner
Ken Smith wrote:
No answer (except that Cam is actually guilty, but might escape human justice) exonerates your god.God is not accountable to Ken Smith. Rather, Ken Smith IS accountable to God. And yet, it appears that Ken will be unable to adequately give account of himself when he stands before God at the Final Judgement. How, then, will Ken be able to escape eternal perdition? Unless he receives Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour in the meanwhile, he will be cast into hell for an eternity of torment.
Ken, please, we implore you: receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour. DO IT NOW!
Ken Smith wrote:
Stop dodging, Ted. It's your god you're trying to cover for.God doesn't need anyone to cover for Him.
Ken: Still waiting for an answer to my question: "Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'"Stop dodging, Ted. It's your god you're trying to cover for. Besides, I've already given you my answer. No answer (except that Cam is actually guilty, but might escape human justice) exonerates your god.
Ted: So how would YOU answer that one, Ken? For extra credit, please explain why.
Ken Smith wrote:
Still waiting for an answer to my question: "Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'"So how would YOU answer that one, Ken? For extra credit, please explain why.
Still waiting for an answer to my question: "Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'"
Wassasmatta, Ted? Pride got your tongue?
See what happens when you turn to the right too often, Ted? http://picasaweb.google.com/
bama...805793000320434
Ted: Oh? And just how exactly would you define "impose"?
Unlike you, when I use a word, I intend that the dictionary definition be used.
Ted Seems to me that those who hold the same beliefs as these men, even when they simply articulate such beliefs, are said to somehow be "imposing" their values upon society.
How so? I think the First Amendment, properly applied, draws a workable distinction. You have, no doubt, heard of the Lemon test? I have no great problem with the de minimis intrusions permissible under the law (e.g., House chaplain as a paid position). What I have a problem with are the all-too-frequent attempts to inculcate Christian religious views in our public schools, on Matt. 7:12 grounds: If you would object to having your children participate in a satanic ritual at school, you should not coerce others into participating in yours. School should be a religion-free zone, as it infringes on the parents' prerogatives.
Ted: The terms "Christian" [when used properly] and "terrorist" are mutually exclusive.
The "No true Scotsman" fallacy again, eh, Ted? Given how poorly you practice Christianity -- one is left to wonder, based on your known public conduct and admissions, whether you practice it at all! -- it is not only possible but reasonable to remove you from its tent.
Okay, so he's a bad Christian -- a "Christian" in name only, if even that -- just like you. Fair enough. Lots of 'em out there.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Oh? And just how exactly would you define "impose"? Seems to me that those who hold the same beliefs as these men, even when they simply articulate such beliefs, are said to somehow be "imposing" their values upon society.Ken Smith wrote [quoting some silly press release]:Extremely tolerant. As far as I am concerned, they are free to believe any damn fool thing they want, as long as they don't attempt to impose their values on society as a whole.such as a tolerance for others' valuesAnd how tolerant is Ken Smith toward the values promoted by, say, the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, or Dr. Pat Robertson?
Ken Smith wrote:
Another Christian terrorist strike:I don't see anything in that statement to indicate that he was a "Christian" (except perhaps in the most nominal sense). The terms "Christian" [when used properly] and "terrorist" are mutually exclusive.
The suspect in custody in connection with the slaying of abortion doctor George Tiller was a member of an anti-government group in the 1990s and a staunch opponent of abortion.
Another Christian terrorist strike:
The suspect in custody in connection with the slaying of abortion doctor George Tiller was a member of an anti-government group in the 1990s and a staunch opponent of abortion.http://www.kansas.com/news/local...ory/ 834448.html
Johnson County sheriff's officials said Scott P. Roeder, 51, of Merriam, was arrested on I-35 near Gardner about three hours after the shooting.
In the rear window of the 1993 blue Ford Taurus that he was driving was a red rose, a symbol often used by abortion opponents.
Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide.
"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide," said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City abortion opponent who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. "I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn."
The only distinction is the bedsheet (well, for some Christians).
While many anti-abortion leaders swiftly issued statements condemning the shooting, their expressions of dismay were not echoed by Randall Terry, a veteran anti-abortion activist whose protests have often targeted Tiller.http://www.kansas.com/457/story/833995.html
"George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that," Terry said. "He was an evil man - his hands were covered with blood."
Terry said he was now concerned that the Obama administration "will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions."
and pro-social attitudes,You are pretty much the template for "anti-social."
Ted: Yah, right. If only there were a consensus about what constitutes "pro-social".
article: that wisdom includes six traits: empathy, compassion, altruism,That you have a Brobdignagian deficit in all three has nothing to do with it, right?
Ted: I disagree.
article: emotional stabilityWe have established that you are so fucked up, it is barely conceivable. As for Cam, I'd imagine that six years in the slam has messed him up more than he already was.
Ted: And how does [ahem] {You-Know-Who} stack up in this category?
As for me, I've been married almost thirty years. A compelling testament to emotional stability.
Ken (quoting article): such as a tolerance for others' valuesExtremely tolerant. As far as I am concerned, they are free to believe any damn fool thing they want, as long as they don't attempt to impose their values on society as a whole. If it harm none, do what thou wilt.
Ted: And how tolerant is Ken Smith toward the values promoted by, say, the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, or Dr. Pat Robertson?
Ken Smith wrote:
It's widely agreedAmong whom?
that wisdom includes six traits: empathy, compassion, altruism,I disagree.
self-understanding,Solipsists included?
emotional stabilityAnd how does [ahem] {You-Know-Who} stack up in this category?
and pro-social attitudes,Yah, right. If only there were a consensus about what constitutes "pro-social".
such as a tolerance for others' values,And how tolerant is Ken Smith toward the values promoted by, say, the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, the late Dr. Jerry Falwell, or Dr. Pat Robertson?
according to background information in a news release about the study.A NEWS RELEASE? What are they going to do, say something critical about themselves? Get your head screwed on.
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medi...cuitry-41888-1/
On this score, you are a few beers short of a six-pack, Ted.And how are you on the score compiled by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board?
It's widely agreed that wisdom includes six traits: empathy, compassion, altruism, self-understanding, emotional stability and pro-social attitudes, such as a tolerance for others' values, according to background information in a news release about the study.
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medi...cuitry-41888-1/
On this score, you are a few beers short of a six-pack, Ted.
Ted: George W. Bush managed to get elected as Governor of Texas, and then as President of the United States. Twice.
When you're the scion of the Bush crime family, you don't have to have talent to succeed.
Ken Smtih wrote:
She was valedictorian of her high school, but she admitted to a colleague that "she nearly flunked out of her first year at Princeton because her writing skills were so poor." http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05...-torts-student/ George W. Bush must have been the salutatorian.I don't know what you're clucking about. George W. Bush managed to get elected as Governor of Texas, and then as President of the United States. Twice. While you seem to not yet have figured out how to get past the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.
American Soldiers Rape Iraqi Girl?
At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...-show- rape.html
Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.
Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.
Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.
And the confession comes from an American general. Onward, Christian Soldiers!!!
Ken: I don't know about you, but I want a judge who will leave his or her feelings in the cloakroom.
Anony: Unlike Judge Arnold.
Unlike a lot of judges out there, my dear. I don't think anyone here has a clue as to just how bad things are. As a judge in one of my cases wrote, "I find even more troubling the degradation of the rule of law itself. While our foreign policy seeks to advance this central tenet of free societies as a public value in other nations, the United States of America seems headed in the opposite direction."
I don't know about you, but I want a judge who will leave his or her feelings in the cloakroom.Unlike Judge Arnold.
From the "cats and dogs, sleeping together" file:
David Boies (Gore's lawyer in Bush v. Gore) and Ted Olson (yes, THAT Ted Olson) are teaming up on a federally-based attack on what little is left of California's Proposition 8. Olson was interviewed by the WSJ. His response:
Wednesday afternoon, we chatted with Olson about the decision to file this case now. “Look, I don’t know how everybody in America feels about this, but we feel that this is the right time,” he said. “When an individual comes to you and his or her constitutional rights are being violated, what do you tell them? Do you tell them yes I’m a lawyer, but I won’t take your case? Do I tell them to go wait a year until the time is right? I don’t think so.”We all know what Ted Kaldis would tell them, but that is almost beside the point.
We also asked Olson the point that some LB readers have so far have made — cynically, perhaps — but in our estimation fairly: Could it be that Olson, typically identified as a conservative, secretly wants to take the case now knowing that it’ll get shot down at the Supreme Court?http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05...-a-bold-gambit/
On that point, he was dismissive. “It’s hard for me to take that seriously,” he answered. “I’ve practiced law for 45 years and David [Boies] has a number of years under his belt too. Neither of us has ever been accused of taking a case to lose. We are going to win this case.”
Unlike most commentators, I don't think it is a high-risk gambit. Scalia has already come out and said that after Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned, there is no logical or legal impediment to same-sex marriage. And if anyone has the firepower to pull this off, these two do.
Following our next soon-to-be unelected dictator, Sonia Sotomayor:
She was valedictorian of her high school, but she admitted to a colleague that "she nearly flunked out of her first year at Princeton because her writing skills were so poor." http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05...-torts-student/
George W. Bush must have been the salutatorian.
I don't know about you, but I want a judge who will leave his or her feelings in the cloakroom.
Ken: I'm just not that important
Ted: I agree. So STFU already.
While I would stipulate that you are fatter and more ugly -- both inside and out -- what makes you so important that your voice is worth hearing, and mine is not?
Ken: Primordial cosmology is far from settled, but for this to matter enough to rescue the concept of a ~6,000-year-old universe? Not even close. Stars take time to burn out and as such, the mere existence of supernovae conclusively refutes the concept of a 6,000 y.o. universe.But we are ALL "at the edge of the Universe," Ted! That's the whole idea of an expanding universe: All matter was ejected from Ground Zero at more-or-less the same velocity. What happens there, happens here -- there is no evidentiary basis for asserting that time stood still here, while it raced away at breathtaking speed at the opposite end of the universe.
Ted: You don't even have the concepts straight. NO ONE is arguing for a 6,000-year-old universe. What is now being postulated (even by scientists who are NOT adherents to the idea of Biblical Creation) is that, due to dilation, time has passed very slowly on earth and very fast at the edges of the universe. Thus it is possible to have a 6,000-year-old earth in a billions-year-old universe.
Think about it: The Milky Way is ~100,000 light years in diameter, and the Magellanic Clouds are even further away. To even suggest that time has behaved in such a radically different manner in the Orion and Sagittarius Arms blazes virgin trails in absurdity; I am certain that no reputable astronomer has suggested it.
Bottom line, you are sodomizing legitimate science for your own religious ends, and doing so in a manner that strongly suggests that you are in desperate need of a saliva test.
Ted: YES where it matters -- in the labs of the top universities of the world.
And where do any of these esteemed experts argue for the concept of a 6,000-year-old Earth? Exactly nowhere. The concept is too fuckin' stupid for any scientist to embrace in his role as a scientist. The evidence to the contrary is too staggeringly overwhelming for anyone but a brain-dead religious drooler to advance it.
Ken Smith wrote:
I'm just not that importantI agree. So STFU already.
Ken Smith wrote:
Primordial cosmology is far from settled, but for this to matter enough to rescue the concept of a ~6,000-year-old universe? Not even close. Stars take time to burn out and as such, the mere existence of supernovae conclusively refutes the concept of a 6,000 y.o. universe.You don't even have the concepts straight. NO ONE is arguing for a 6,000-year-old universe. What is now being postulated (even by scientists who are NOT adherents to the idea of Biblical Creation) is that, due to dilation, time has passed very slowly on earth and very fast at the edges of the universe. Thus it is possible to have a 6,000-year-old earth in a billions-year-old universe.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:YES where it matters -- in the labs of the top universities of the world.Ken Smith wrote:Not where it matters.The speed of light is, for all practical intents and purposes, a constant;BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!! While this was once thought to be unassailably true, this idea is now under serious challenge.
"Moe": Is there somewhere we can get updates on this case instead of the Ken and Ted show?
This can't be OUR Moe, Ted. She'd be bitch-slapping you by now.
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken: The speed of light is, for all practical intents and purposes, a constant;
Ted: BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!! While this was once thought to be unassailably true, this idea is now under serious challenge.
Not where it matters. Primordial cosmology is far from settled, but for this to matter enough to rescue the concept of a ~6,000-year-old universe? Not even close. Stars take time to burn out and as such, the mere existence of supernovae conclusively refutes the concept of a 6,000 y.o. universe.
Ted: While there is admittedly formidable resistance against the challengers (as there invariably has been to new ideas throughout history), nevertheless, no one is able to effectively refute them.
That's risible, Ted! No astrophysicist of any substance will argue for the concept of a 6,000 y.o. universe. We know WAY too much about stellar physics. The refutation is a simple one, which has held sway since we got a firm grasp on the concept of nuclear fusion.
Ted: Anyone who seriously examines their thesis with an open mind is forced to conclude that there is merit to the contention that the speed of light has been decaying.
You said it yourself: If it is decaying, the current level of decay is indiscernible. That primordial conditions were not what they are today is hardly a radical concept. It is entirely possible that the laws of thermodynamics as we know them (iirc, they are observational in nature) did not apply then. The universe as we know it might have no beginning or end, but exist in an endless cycle of boom and bust. And there could be a universe next door. None of this is off the table, Ted. None of it.
As for examining the question with an open mind, anyone with that can see that there is no merit to your conception of Christianity, and that your cosmology is nonsensical. Again, the question is always one of materiality. For your system to work requires not only that we be wrong about all we know, but so spectacularly so that it borders on the inconceivable. It may have been that, at the first moment of the "birth" (or re-birth) of our universe, the speed of light was astonishingly fast, but it appears that things have settled down considerably since then.
Ted: Ken, your arguments are so yesterday. Get with the times.
Actually, my arguments are so tomorrow. We don't have the data to even begin to test what I speculate that the material universe might actually be like. There are limits to our event horizon. However, it is clear that the primitives' conception of the universe (the Hindu, Mayan, and even the Australian aboriginal notions were a lot closer to reality than that of their Jewish counterparts) can no longer stand. Christian cosmology is self-immolating, as it can provide no coherent answer to questions like "Is the fact that Cameron Brown has been rotting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for six years awaiting trial for an alleged murder that you say was an accident 'justice?'"
Speaking of which, why is it that you take such umbrage at the idea that others have a right to question your conception of a god? [Ted: "I laugh to think that Ken Smith fancies himself to be smarter even than God."] I don't consider myself as being knowledgeable enough [as "smart" doesn't enter the equation of you don't have sufficient information to perform coherent analysis] to even begin to understand what "God" might be about. Fortunately, I don't need to and don't bother with the question, for two reasons: (1) If "God" wanted something from me, S/he/it/they would have the common decency to ask me straightaway, and (2) unless and until "God" impacts my life in any material way, it doesn't matter overmuch whether S/he/it/they exists or not. Your concept of a god is entirely of your own making, in the sense that he always seems to see things your way. This is, to my mind, patently absurd. I'm just not that important to the universe; by contrast, you have never learned humility.
"Moe" wrote:
Is there somewhere we can get updates on this case instead of the Ken and Ted show?What would you like to know? There isn't much happening right now. The retrial is set to start in about a month and a half.
Ken Smith wrote:
The speed of light is, for all practical intents and purposes, a constant;BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!! While this was once thought to be unassailably true, this idea is now under serious challenge. While there is admittedly formidable resistance against the challengers (as there invariably has been to new ideas throughout history), nevertheless, no one is able to effectively refute them. Anyone who seriously examines their thesis with an open mind is forced to conclude that there is merit to the contention that the speed of light has been decaying.
Ken, your arguments are so yesterday. Get with the times.
Is there somewhere we can get updates on this case instead of the Ken and
Ted show?
Ken: Sorry, Ted, but the claim you make is far from established.
Ted: Granted. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the same could be said of the claims that you make. (BTW, and let's not forget that at one time it was "established" that the earth was flat.)
While conditions in the primordial universe may be stranger than we can imagine, there is not a lot of legitimate scholarly debate over what conditions have been like in recent cosmic history. The speed of light is, for all practical intents and purposes, a constant; if what you suggested was true, we'd be able to discern a material deterioration, even in our own time. Bottom line, nothing can save the 6,000-year-old Earth theory.
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Translation: It's a theory that hard-line ideologue evolutionists are unable to adequately refute.BTW, have you ever heard of Polonium halos in granite?Junk science.
Ted: Several researchers have independently found that the plotted curve for the rate of decay appears to approsimate the plot of a cosecant squared. One has estimated that soon after the "big bang" it was probably about 10 to the 10th power (ten billion [as billion is defined in the U.S.]) times as fast as what it is today. And today the rate of decay is asymptotic (meaning that it has slowed down tremendously and isn't slowing down very fast any more).
The problem you are eliding is in how you account for the phenomena known as supernovae. We know enough about stellar physics to understand the nuclear reactions that occur. Once the hydrogen is converted into helium, the star collapses onto itself and ignites the helium, if it has the requisite mass. Once the helium is burned, you have another collapse. Wikipedia has a nice layman's explanation:
A type II supernova belongs to a sub-category of cataclysmic variable star known as a core-collapse supernova, which results from the internal collapse and violent explosion of a massive star. The presence of hydrogen in its spectrum is what distinguishes a type II supernova from other classes of supernova explosions. A star must have at least 9 times the mass of the Sun in order to undergo this type of core-collapse.[1]
Massive stars generate energy by the nuclear fusion of elements. Unlike the Sun, these stars possess the mass needed to fuse elements that have an atomic mass greater than hydrogen and helium. The star evolves to accommodate the fusion of these accumulating, higher mass elements, until finally a core of iro