On Apr 9, 11:22=A0am, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [In case there's any doubt, he lost this one, too.]
>
> For those not familiar with the background, in 1998, after graduating
from=
> law school, Ken Smith applied to become a lawyer in Colorado. =A0He had
pa=
ssed
> the bar exam, but ran afoul of the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.
>
> Specifically, on the basis of some legal actions that Ken had initiated
wh=
en
> he was still a law student (and also ostensibly because of a perceived
lac=
k
> of candor by Ken), the Bar Examiners asked Ken to submit to a
psychologica=
l
> examination. =A0Ken refused, and was consequently DENIED a licence to
prac=
tise
> law in Colorado. =A0See:
>
> =A0 =A0<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Order.htm>
>
> Ken then sued the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Examiners'
> Board in Federal District Court, where Judge Edward Nottingham dismissed
h=
is
> suit. =A0Ken appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he
fared=
no
> better:
>
> =A0 =A0<http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>
>
> Ken then tried his luck in State District Court, where Judge H. Jeffrey
> Bayless also dismissed his case. =A0Ken then appealed to the Colorado
Supr=
eme
> Court -- who were among the DEFENDANTS in his case -- and you can guess
th=
e
> outcome:
>
> =A0 =A0<http://65.45.99.70/opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=3D5343>
>
> Well, as it transpires, Ken wasn't done yet. =A0He refiled his case in
Fed=
eral
> District Court, adding Judge Nottingham, the 10th Circuit, and Judge
Bayle=
ss
> to the list of defendants. =A0Here is the result:
>
> =A0 =A0<http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/05/04-1468.htm>
>
> In light of these events, does ANYONE have any doubts that the Colorado
Ba=
r
> Examiners' Board made the right call in the first place?
> --
> Theodore A. Kaldis
> =A0 kal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wish he won his lawsuits. He's deserving of it, and you're only fit
to hang out with dingos and taipans.
|
