XPost: alt.politics.british, can.legal, misc.legal   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
   >>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >>>Come on, Ken.  You allege that the Examiners' Board asked you to submit to   
   >>>a psychological examination only as a pretext, in reprisal for things that   
   >>>you had written against Bob Larson.  But NOWHERE do you present any   
   >>>evidence that such is actually the case.   
   >   
   >>For purposes of injunctive relief, I don't NEED to!   
   >   
   > Perhaps not, but if you want to convince a judge that you are ENTITLED to   
   > injunctive relief, you might need to.   
      
      The law doesn't *require* it.  But if judges don't have to follow the   
   law, the Bill of Rights is in the crapper anyway.   
      
   >>For a statute to be unconstitutionally vague in a First Amendment context,   
   >>all it has to do is BE ABLE TO reach protected speech.   
   >   
   > So the members of the Examiners' Board inquiry panel had some questions about   
   > your psychological fitness to practise law that were potentially raised by   
   > some of the material that you had published on your website, and this is all   
   > of a sudden a "free speech" issue?   
      
      Damn straight it is.  Why?  Because SCOTUS said so.  Repeatedly.   
      
   > Sorry, this doesn't wash.   
      
      Citations?  Of course not, because there aren't any.   
      
      I can only go by SCOTUS precedent.  If you want to make *your* law   
   up, I have no chance whatever of prevailing under that tendentious, ad   
   hoc, and infintely malleable standard.   
      
   >>To wit, none other than Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey wrote that statutes   
   >>"confronting First Amendment freedoms *must be* specific enough not to   
   >>inhibit the exercise of those freedoms."   
   >   
   > That's fine, but C.R.C.P. 201 doesn't confront 1st Amendment freedoms, it   
   > "confronts" procedures by which applicants to Colorado's Bar are evaluated   
   > before being issued a licence to practise law.   
      
      Citations?  Of course not, because there aren't any.   
      
      Indirect restraints on speech are as constitutionally impermissible   
   as the more obvious and direct kind -- for reasons which are also   
   patently obvious.  I can only go by SCOTUS precedent.  If you want to   
   make *your* law up, I have no chance of prevailing under those   
   tendentious, ad hoc, and infinitely malleable standards.   
      
   >>As such, if the statute can act to inhibit protected speech either   
   >>directly, or through the facilitation of government retaliation, it   
   >>necessarily fails constitutional muster.   
   >   
   > But where is the EVIDENCE of any "retaliation"?  You are only alleging that   
   > the Examiners' Board "retaliated" against you without offering any proof that   
   > this is what actually occurred.   
      
      Under Carey v. Piphus, all I have to show is that I was entitled to   
   procedural due process, and didn't get it.  A lot easier case, really.   
      
   >>Remember that the value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs -- not that   
   >>it drops.   
   >   
   > But if it hangs secured by a rope rather than by a thread, it doesn't pose   
   > much of a threat.   
      
      And those safeguards are?  The constitutionally fatal problem with   
   the statute is that there aren't any.   
      
   >>As for the evidence that they were acting in reprisal for my exercise of   
   >>protected speech, how much clearer does it have to be than paragraph 43?   
   >>Surely, "The Inquiry Panel believed that Applicant had displayed an   
   >>inordinate interest in exposing alleged frauds" means what it says, and   
   >>thus constitutes a damning admission.   
   >   
   > Sorry, but this does not look like a "reprisal" to me.  It looks like a   
   > legitimate question that they had regarding what must certainly have looked   
   > like an obsession to them.   
      
      Constitutionally speaking, that question would necessarily be out of   
   bounds by definition, if previous SCOTUS holdings are to be relied on.   
   Again, if you want to make *your* law up, I have no chance whatever of   
   prevailing under those tendentious, ad hoc, and infinitely malleable   
   standards.   
      
      In the hypothetical state of Kaldis, where Ted gets to pull the law   
   out of his ass and changes at Ted's whim, and the "facts" are what Ted   
   says they are, I have no hope of prevailing.  But unless and until you   
   become reasonably conversant with the law of the United States, 10th   
   Circuit, and Colorado (or accept my exposition of it), we really can't   
   have a rational discussion of this topic.   
      
      In the state of Kaldis, Carey v. Piphus isn't the law -- because Ted   
   doesn't like it.  In the state of Kaldis, Hurtado is unconstitutional,   
   even though it was *a SCOTUS decision* -- because Ted doesn't like it.   
     If I can't rely on the published decisions binding in my jurisdiction,   
       it is impossible to discuss "law," because there is no law to discuss.   
      
   > (And for good reason, no less.)   
      
      Why?  Because you're a self-confessed felon [albeit not a convicted   
   one] who hates whistle-blowers.   
      
   >>And that question by Hargleroad?  "Why don't you let go?"   
   >   
   > Thoroughly reasonable.   
      
      Is it?  Why don't you let go, Lord Wilberforce?  Why don't you let   
   go, Rev. King?   
      
   >>Read MLK's infamous letter from the Birmingham jail.  King's fellow pastors   
   >>asked *him* the same thing.   
   >   
   > The problem here is that you're no Martin Luther King.   
      
      He was an adulterer -- what do you expect from a Christian minister?   
     I am not.  Guess I'm even better than he was....   
   >   
   >>Was Dr. King crazy?   
   >   
   > No, he was just willing to put up with a lot of sh*t in response to a glaring   
   > injustice.  Your problem is that no one sees any injustice of such magnitude   
   > in your case.   
      
      "No one," meaning Ted Kaldis?  Hey, you wouldn't see any injustice if   
   us mere uppity niggers were persecuted, because we ain't a part of your   
   Master Race.  We have to lick the pinworms off your Jesus' ass to gain   
   your blessing....   
      
      Have you ever actually *read* the Letter?  He wrote it because he was   
   being criticized -- not by Joe Bob, Billy Bob, and/or the First Baptist   
   Church of Plains, GA, but by his fellow black ministers!   
      
   > And your trying to portray it as such only serves to suggest   
   > that the inquiry panel was indeed correct in their assessment about you.   
      
      You see it that way because you need to see it that way.  Objectivity   
   has never been one of your strongest suits.   
      
   >>After all, he DID, in the estimation of some, "go too far ..."  (As Barry   
   >>Goldwater said it, "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.")   
   >   
   > And "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice".  The problem is that   
   > Lyndon Johnson beat him up with that part -- which is exactly where you are   
   > getting tripped up, because your tactics are seen as so "extreme" to be "over   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)