On Apr 10, 5:14=A0am, kensmithiscool <kensmithisc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:22=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
fr=
om
> > law school, Ken Smith applied to become a lawyer in Colorado. =A0He
had =
passed
> > the bar exam, but ran afoul of the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.
>
> > Specifically, on the basis of some legal actions that Ken had
initiated =
when
> > he was still a law student (and also ostensibly because of a perceived
l=
ack
> > of candor by Ken), the Bar Examiners asked Ken to submit to a
psychologi=
cal
> > examination. =A0Ken refused, and was consequently DENIED a licence to
pr=
actise
> > 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=
his
> > suit. =A0Ken appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he
far=
ed 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
Su=
preme
> > Court -- who were among the DEFENDANTS in his case -- and you can
guess =
the
> > 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
F=
ederal
> > District Court, adding Judge Nottingham, the 10th Circuit, and Judge
Bay=
less
> > 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 =
Bar
> > Examiners' Board made the right call in the first place?
>
> We get what we deserve. =A0I suppose it is reasonable -- albeit
> appropriate! -- to credit Reverend Bob Larson's inadvertent role here
> with regard to Ken's fate, predicated upon his longtime magnificent
> obsession with BL. =A0If I had a dollar for every time I related to Ken
> that he's in a lose-lose situation, I'd own Viti Levu by now. =A0This is
> what is so beautiful about Ken's quagmire: =A0BL never once got down in
> the mud with Kenny :) =A0 Ken is still in the hearts of those who still
> care enough about him to pray for him with the power of God's
> word.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh hello BOB LARSON!!
Naw Boobie, Ken exposed you for the lying adulterous piece of crap
you actually are. You can posture about how you " care" for him, but
funny how a few years ago you were so interested in getting his wife
Cindi AWAY from Ken to " minister" to her.
As for you " not getting down in the mud", may I remind you that you
did sue him and he won the lawsuit. Also that you while you had your
radio show made a big stink about " enemies of this ministry"
attacking you and that you claimed that a picture of a guy holding a
molotov cocktail was Ken threatening to bomb your Vail MANSION.
Sure you would love to get your mits on Ken. And he knows it. Just
like you would love to lure me to one of your cult conversion "
conferences" where you have goons restraining people. You tried that "
we care about you" crap with me, remember, claiiming I had demons but
you were too chicken**** to exorcize them from me in a voice chatroom.
You focus on Ken because you suspect he has FAR MORE about you than
what he's revealed. And that worries the hell out of you.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/
|
