XPost: alt.politics.british, can.legal, misc.legal   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
      
      [colloquy]   
      
   >>>>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?  Sorry, this doesn't wash.   
   >   
   >>Maybe not in the hypothetical state of Kaldis,   
   >   
   > Not in the state of Colorado, either, apparently.   
      
      If that is the case, you should be able to cite case law that would   
   support it -- but even *you* know that you can't.  After all, if Craig   
   Hum could fracture the law, there's no reason why the Colorado courts   
   couldn't shatter it, as well.  (After all, it's not like they have the   
   courts and the press watching over them, making sure they do their job   
   right....)   
      
      Two possibilities: Either they are right on the law, or I am right on   
   the law (and they are violating it).  If you cannot produce case law to   
   buttress your position, you are logically compelled to concede that the   
   second possibility must be the right one.   
      
      But for *you* to act honorably and/or logically would certainly be a   
   first; even Jesus would turn over in his grave.   
      
   >>where Ted gets to make up the law on the fly,   
   >   
   > Ted doesn't get to make up any law.   
      
      Fine.  Then Ted must either *find* case law to support his position,   
   concede that the second possibility is the right one, or admit that he   
   is simply a compulsive liar with a personal vendetta against me.   
      
   >>and Ted is the exclusive and final arbiter of the facts.   
   >   
   > But in Ken Smith's case, Ken wants the final arbiter to be Ken Smith.   
      
      All I want is what former SCOTUS Chief Justice Hughes said that I   
   have a right to: for the court to apply the law to the true facts of the   
   case -- as opposed to their fabricating 'facts' and deliberately   
   mis-applying and even ignoring binding law -- and to show clearly that   
   they have done that in their written opinion.  In sum, procedural due   
   process and equal protection.  [For if I am not entitled to it, why   
   should Cam be?]   
      
   >>But at least in America, Supreme Court cases are supposed to be the   
   >>definitive exposition of the law under which we are working.  In the   
   >>hypothetical state (and/or highly inebriated condition) of Kaldis, Carey   
   >>v. Piphus, Howlett v. Rose, and Conley v. Gibson are not the law BECAUSE   
   >>TED SAYS SO!   
   >   
   > They might be the law, but that doesn't mean that Ken Smith is entitled to a   
   > law licence just because some court says that miscreants should be able to   
   > get away with smoking pot just outside the schoolhouse door in Chicago.   
      
      No, it doesn't.  What it *does* mean is that Ken Smith is entitled to   
   due process of law -- whether he is entitled to a license or not.  And   
   what that also must mean is that Ken Smith is entitled to a full, fair,   
   trial-type hearing on the matter of his admission.   
      Why?  Not because Ken Smith says so, but because SCOTUS said so, even   
   before Ken Smith was even born.  Until you understand this point, there   
   is no way you will ever understand my case, and any discussions we have   
   are by definition pointless.   
      
      Carey.  Feldman.  Conley.  Howlett.  Schware.  Baumgartner.  Marbury   
   v. Madison.  Et al., ad nauseum.  Either these cases *ARE* the law, and   
   I am entitled to rely on them, or THERE IS NO LAW.   
      
      [snipped remainder of Ted's ludicrous rant; I might respond later]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)