XPost: alt.politics.british, can.legal, misc.legal   
   XPost: alt.true-crime   
   From: forget@it.com   
      
   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   
   Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:   
   > Ken Smith wrote:   
      
      [Snippage dealt with in earlier post; Ted's defense of Cam Brown in   
   the Lauren Key murder case is just too comical to ignore.  That having   
   been said, the prosecution would probably find it useful to learn that   
   the defense will contend that their report contains what they claim to   
   be fatal errors, and that they should be preparing a response, if they   
   had not already done so.  Accordingly, it makes sense to apprise Sandi   
   Gibbons, PIO for the D.A.'s office, of this fact.  Consider this to be   
   in the public interest.]   
      
      
   >>If we're going to play by your rules, we're not playing by the rule of law.   
   >   
   > Why do you bring up the Rule of Law?   
      
      While I respect and *demand* the rule of law, I cannot countenance   
   the arbitrary governance of judges, any more than I'd willingly tolerate   
   the capricious rule of a homegrown Saddam.  And what we are talking   
   about in this thread is the rule of law, as opposed to the arbitrary   
   rule by men.   
      
   > You don't have much respect for it  anyway.   
      
      Examples?  Of course, you can't give us any, because there are none   
   to give.  (I would, however, add the same caveat as Dr. King: an unjust   
   law is no law at all, and any unconstitutional "order" is by definition   
   null and void.)   
      
   >>(I freely admit that in your kangaroo court, I have no hope of prevailing.)   
   >   
   > Nor in Denver Federal District Court, nor in the 10th Circuit Court of   
   > Appeals, either.   
      
      Could it be that THEY are run by malicious marsupials, or is it just   
   the L.A. courts who supposedly have it in for Cam?   
      
   >>[...]   
   >   
   >>Why didn't the *Founding Fathers* let go?  [...]   
   >   
   > You're comparing yourself to the Founding Fathers?   The Colorado Bar   
   > Examiners' Board asks an apparent nutcase like you to submit to a [much-   
   > needed, if you ask me] psychological examination, and this is an issue that   
   > is the equivalent of the American Revolution?   
      
      Arbitrary governance -- precisely what *I* am complaining about --   
   was one of their gripes as well.  Read the DoI.  If it happens to one of   
   us, it happens to all of us.   
      
      Is it any less honorable to fight for the human rights of one man   
   than for those of a group or a race?  Us Republicans say no, while you   
   closet Democratic socialists say yes.   
      
   >>>>One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is to criticize public   
   >>>>men and measures -- even more fervently than you or I might think would   
   >>>>be prudent.   
   >>>   
   >>>Perhaps -- but to do so without being discreet about it invites disaster   
   >>>-- as you should be learning from the School of Hard Knocks.   
   >>   
   >>Persecution by the government is not a permissible consequence of our   
   >>protected speech -- if the First Amendment is to mean anything.   
   >   
   > Yeah, well, maybe an apparent nutcase such as yourself needs a little   
   > persecution   
      
      At which Christians positively excel -- so much so, that Muslims have   
   obviously been taking notes.   
      
   >>>>This is and certainly must be, or the government becomes the ultimate   
   >>>>arbiter of speech and thought.   
   >   
   >>>In some matters, it already is -- and in those matters you applaud this.   
      
   >>That you cannot obtain an exclusive franchise to shove your spiritual   
   >>cyanide down throats of impressionable and defenseless young children is   
   >>not letting the government be "the arbiter of speech and thought."   
   >   
   > This country was a much nicer and safer place when God and the Bible and   
   > prayer were a part of public discourse.  And you can't deny that.   
      
      Sure I can.  Niggers had their own bathrooms -- when they HAD   
   anything at all.  And "there are certain sections of New York City I   
   would advise you not to try to invade." [Rick Blaine (Bogart), from   
   Casablanca].  The McCarthy hearings were a veritable showcase of   
   American values.  Cocaine was the recreational drug of choice a century   
   ago, and law and order had virtually broken down in Chicago during   
   Prohibition.  The Klan ruled the roost in the Denver of a century ago.   
      As an overall rule, things are better than they were in the "good old   
   days," though it cannot be said that everything was better.  Yours is a   
   fanciful and almost wistful look at the past, remembering the roses but   
   conveniently forgetting the thorns.   
      
   > And I   
   > submit that there is much more than a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" relationship   
   > here.   
      
      It's "post hoc," but why quibble?  We had Watergate, Iran-Contra, and   
   Enron; they had Teapot Dome and the epidemic securities fraud scandals   
   which precipitated the formation of the SEC.  They had Standard Oil, we   
   have Wal-Mart.  You (us married folks really don't) have to worry about   
   AIDS; they had to worry about syphillis.  Children worked in sweatshops.   
   Houses of ill-repute were everywhere.  Gambling was even more widespread   
   than it is today.  Judges took cash.  And Jews STILL can't get into the   
   Denver Country Club and women, Augusta National.   
      
      But at least, you gays can finally enjoy the blessings of   
   marriage.... :)   
      
      It would seem that we are evolving toward a more perfect union, as   
   the Founding Fathers envisioned -- but that there are inevitable speed   
   bumps upon that road.  Corrupt judges, reckless Chief Executives,   
   bribery as a form of campaign finance, and a stifling bureaucracy are   
   all problematic -- but we must persevere, because the alternative is   
   unacceptable.   
      
      Exactly what was so *good* about the "good old days?"   
      
   >>Your Romper-Room comprehension of First Amendment law is even more daft   
   >>than your "kindergarten understanding" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics   
   >>(as the late Isaac Asimov put it).   
   >   
   > I know how the First Amendment works out in the real world.   
      
      IOW, it only exists as a platitude?  That's America's Christian ethos   
   shining through!  Like the Soviet Union before us, we only *SIGN* human   
   rights treaties; we make no effort whatever to actually enforce them in   
   our own country.  Whether it is the International Covenant on Civil and   
   Political Rights and the Covenant Against Torture (collectively, the de   
   facto international "bill or rights") or the Geneva Conventions, we only   
   respect them when they are convenient.  Christian hypocrisy on display!   
      
   > As for the 2nd  Law, it's like the law of gravity -- you CAN'T break it.   
      
      But there are situations where it is inapplicable, such as the Earth,   
   which was Asimov's point.  We are a net importer of energy, and on that   
   score, we are not the "closed system" which is required for the Second   
   Law to preclude increasing levels of organization.  (Sidney Fox proved   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)