Ken Smith: Rogue Judges Invite Their Own Demise

[bmielke]

KSmith,

Out of curiosity when you were denied admission in CO did you attempt to gain admission anywhere else? I am not sure if it's possible, but I'm not a lawyer, but if I was and I was denied admission I would likely try someplace else before going to Federal court and taking to the internet.

BM

Depends. If you were reared as a precious snowflake and taught that you should have everything you want, then it is likely that when you are denied something you would not know how to handle it and go from zero to nuclear hissy-fit with no stops in between.

Ah, not a problem I ever had, my father pretty much abondoned me, and my mother wasn't around much, I was pretty much raised by my Grandmother who didn't put up with "Hissy Fits".

[Duke2Earl]

Anyone who would voluntary read more than a couple of paragraphs into that nonsense has too much time on their hands... either than or a morbid sense of humor.

It would have helped a lot if Hurt had taken the time to properly format it, but it appears that your quarrel is with him and therefore, anything that he brings to your attention must be by definition ridiculous, because he endorses it. Sounds like USENET 2.0 to me. Grow up.

Here's the deal... unlike you I have been a licensed practicing attorney for close on to 34 years now. I have practiced with and against the big boys more times than I can count. One thing I have learned in that time is to recognize bull crap when I see it. You could format Hurt's crap with a gold print on velvet with a nice ribbon around it and it would still be crap. It's not that he said it (I haven't even got a clue who he is)... or you said it or who said it at all but that it is stupid unmitigated crap. And you seemingly are under the dumb impression that if you say it like you think a lawyer speaks it somehow makes crap into gold. Sorry, but no.... you lose... go away.

[KSmith]

This was, of course, a patent violation of both the Americans With Disabilities Act and their own enabling act;....

Which disability are you claiming to have? I don't think inability to make a cogent argument or inability to win a case in court are recognised disabilities.

As you are using the Commonwealth spelling, I must assume that you aren't familiar with the applicable law.

In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”), establishing additional civil rights protections for persons with disabilities. By Jan. 26, 1992, the effective date of the Act, all public entities, including state licensing boards, see, e.g., Ware v. Wyoming Bd. of Law Examiners, 973 F.Supp. 1139 (D.Wyo. 1997); Clark v. Virginia Bd. of Law Examiners, 880 F.Supp. 430, 441 E.D.Va. 1995), were required to comply with its provisions.

Title II prohibits “discrimination” by a “public entity” against a “qualified individual with a disability,” 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1999), defining such an individual as one “who meets the essential eligibility requirements . . . for the receipt of services or participation in programs” provided by a public entity, Id. § 12131, and an “individual with a disability” includes those who are not disabled, but are nonetheless “treated by a covered [public] entity as having a substantially limiting impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(1); Richards v. City of Topeka, 173 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 1999). The ADA’s focus is thus not the impairment itself, but the alleged impairment’s “effect upon the attitudes of others.” MacDonald v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 94 F.3d 1437, 1444 (10th Cir. 1996).

Section 12132 covers not only “exclusion from participation in or [denial of] benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, but also being “subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1999). A public entity discriminates against bar applicants regarded as having disabilities if it imposes additional burdens upon them, Clark, supra., and the imposition of a substantial surcharge upon disabled persons constitutes discrimination forbidden under the ADA. See, Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 1999) ($6 charge for handicapped placard is discrimination; collecting pre-1999 cases).

Similarly, a public entity may not “impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out ... any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered.” 28 C.F.R.§ 35.130(b)(6). And while it may seem intuitive that a mental fitness requirement could and should be imposed on attorneys, Rule 201.10(6) permits an applicant who has been declared mentally incompetent to even handle his own checkbook to practice law, at the apparently unfettered discretion of the Colorado Supreme Court.

First and foremost, the mental fitness requirement was perfectly vague and therefore, a violation of due process. Second, asking me to pay for the procedure was a violation of the ADA. You claim to be lawyers, and don't understand that?! Go back to traffic court, where you obviously belong.

[KSmith]

Here's the deal... unlike you I have been a licensed practicing attorney for close on to 34 years now. I have practiced with and against the big boys more times than I can count. One thing I have learned in that time is to recognize bull crap when I see it.

And other veteran attorneys from top-rank law schools (including two from Stanford) will tell you that you are full of it. If you're an ambulance-chaser with a BAR-BRI level understanding of constitutional law, thoughts like these are above your pay-grade.

[Famspear]

.........First and foremost, the mental fitness requirement was perfectly vague and therefore, a violation of due process. Second, asking me to pay for the procedure was a violation of the ADA. You claim to be lawyers, and don't understand that?! Go back to traffic court, where you obviously belong.

Dear Ken:

I've reviewed your file and, based on what I've seen and what you've been writing here in this thread, I conclude that the Court was correct in denying you a license to practice law. The Court's action was for your own good and, more importantly, for the good of the public.

Look on the bright side: Had you been allowed to practice law, I don't think you would have been happy, anyway.

Thank you for playing, though.

[bmielke]

[snip ADA crap we didn't need]

Being familar with the act you must allege a disability (possibly prove) and then demand a reasonable accomodation, what disability are you alleged to have.

As to the Mental Fitness requirement, think about what a lawyer does, and why someone who is mentally ill is incapabale of doing it then come back to us.

[Duke2Earl]

Here's the deal... unlike you I have been a licensed practicing attorney for close on to 34 years now. I have practiced with and against the big boys more times than I can count. One thing I have learned in that time is to recognize bull crap when I see it.

And other veteran attorneys from top-rank law schools (including two from Stanford) will tell you that you are full of it. If you're an ambulance-chaser with a BAR-BRI level understanding of constitutional law, thoughts like these are above your pay-grade.

Unlike you or your alleged veteran attorneys, I am basically uninterested in your theories. Like my clients, I am only interested in what will win in court. Your theories simply will not win. If those theories could win they would have... instead they lose and are considered frivolous. Therefore, you might as well be writing science fiction. What you and similar fools don't seem to understand is that it really does not matter what you think... nor, in fact, does it matter what I think... the only thing that matters is what the courts think. You may decry what the courts are or what you think they have become or what you think was intended but in real point of fact, none of that matters one iota. I, and my clients live and work in a world of reality; what actually is... as opposed to your fantasies and desires. And ponderous and flawed as it may be, our court system works and will continue to work and your channeling of the dead and pissing and moaning will not change a thing.

An ambulance chaser... that is indeed rich. Just let it be said that my pay grade is far, far, far above yours.

[webhick]

And other veteran attorneys from top-rank law schools (including two from Stanford) will tell you that you are full of it.

Reminds me of a scene from "Community," in which the lead character, Jeff, is explaining to a community college counselor that he was disbarred because his law degree was "less than legitimate." The counselor replies that he thought that Jeff had a degree from Columbia. Jeff then goes, "Yes, and now I need one from America.

Thought I'd share. Now back to your regularly scheduled...whatever this is.

[KSmith]

...
...
...
My first question to you, Nikki, is how you would read the Good Behavior Clause and why, given the admonition in Marbury v. Madison that "it cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it." 5 U.S. at 174.

My second is how you come to the conclusion that the Constitution invested the judiciary with plenary and unchallengeable power to interpret it, in light of Justice Jay's admonition to the jury to the contrary in a matter before the United States Supreme Court.

Constitution Article. III. Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

First, my (or your) reading of the clause is irrelevant. To the extent that it must be interpreted, that (like any other interpretation of law or the Constitution)) is the sole responsibility of the Judicial branch.

Second, you, like most other law deniers, are taking Justice Jay's remarks totally out of the context of the case at hand AND you are ignoring subsequent interpretations contrary to his view. Are you alleging that anything ever said by a Supreme Court Justice is immediately immutable and sacrosanct? If so, you are investing in each of them more power than is held by the Pope.

Have you thought through the implications of that statement, Nikki? If you believe that to be true -- yes, I know it is taught in law school -- then you are acquiescing to a regime of judicial supremacy, where "law" is whatever five justices say it is on any given day. "Law" becomes both ex post facto and ad hoc, and indistinguishable from the pronouncements of Kim Jong-Il. You are arguing for tyranny, Nikki! The most effective working definition of judicial tyranny is Edward Gibbon’s canny observation in his magnum opus on the Roman Empire: "the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." 4 E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Part VII (ca. 1780).

No sentient person would ever knowingly enter into a social compact wherein the judges are masters of the law, and can depart from it at will for any reason or no reason at all without consequence.

Remember that the trial by jury was supposed to have been "preserved" as it stood in 1791, as that word was used only once in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently treated the Seventh Amendment as trapping the jury trial in amber. Accordingly, if a court procedure alters the substance of the English common law jury trial as it existed in 1791, see Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 350 (1898) (stating that “common law” refers to the English common law in 1791), it is unconstitutional. Speaking for the Court, Justice Souter explains that Court’s “historical test”:

Since Justice Story’s day, we have understood that "[the] right of trial by jury thus preserved is the right which existed under the English common law when the Amendment was adopted." In keeping with our longstanding adherence to this "historical test," we ask, first, whether we are dealing with a cause of action that either was tried at law at the time of the founding or is at least analogous to one that was. If the action in question belongs in the law category, we then ask whether the particular trial decision must fall to the jury in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791.

Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370, 376 (1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

“The Court has never described, however, what constitutes the substance of the common law jury trial.” Suja A. Thomas, Why Summary Judgment Is Unconstitutional, 93 U.Va. L. Rev. 139, 142 (2007). And pointedly, what it has never done is address the question of whether the distinguishing feature of the jury trial -- that the jury has the power to decide matters of both fact and law -- can be extinguished without running afoul of the Seventh Amendment.

Prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, English judges were rightly described as “lions under the throne,” Sir Francis Bacon, Essays LVI (Of Judicature) (1627), servile creatures of the King. As they held their lucrative sinecures at the pleasure of the King, they had a self-evident incentive to place their fingers on the scales of justice in a manner designed to please him.

The English solution to this obvious due process problem was the jury trial, in which, the subject’s peers decided what the facts and applicable law were. Judges were reduced to the status of administrator and father-confessor: they advised the jury as to the state of the law, knowing that a dishonest rendition of same could be and should be ignored. Appellate review restrained the runaway jury, but the only remedy was retrial on the merits. As such, the jury was an essential countervailing force against tyranny, as it had a right to thwart even the will of the King. William Blackstone boldly declared that it was "the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals." 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Lawes of England 379 (1765).

Pursuant to the Act of Settlement [1701], 1 W. & M. Sess. 2. c. 2. s.2, English judges were given lifetime sinecures, contingent upon their good behavior. (This was a well-established term of art under English law, as offices were bestowed via letters patent, subject to this condition.) While this freed the English judge from accountability to the King, he was still accountable to Parliament and the litigants themselves, as the condition of “good behavior” defined the bounds of his office. But even this did not alter the essential tenor of the jury trial, as it was seen as an important structural safeguard against despotic aristocratic rule. Speaking for the Court, Justice White explains:

Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary, but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power -- a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges."

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1968) (emphasis added).

While I am aware of what other judges have said -- a fuller discussion of Callender can be indulged, if you insist -- the inescapable fact remains that the judiciary has usurped a power the Framers wisely entrusted to the civil and criminal jury. Judge Bork elaborates:

The illegitimacy of the Court's departures from the Constitution is underscored by the fact that no Justice has ever attempted a justification of the practice. At most, opinions have offered, as if it solved something, the observation that the Court has never felt its power confined to the intended meaning of the Constitution. True enough, but a long habit of abuse of authority does not make the abuse legitimate. That is particularly so when the representative branches of government have no effective way of resisting the Court's depredations.

Viewing the carnage created by the Court, George Will referred to the Justices as "our robed masters." When the VMI decision came down, my wife said the Justices were behaving like a "band of outlaws." Neither of those appellations is in the least bit extreme. The Justices are our masters in a way that no President, Congressman, governor, or other elected official is. They order our lives and we have no recourse, no means of resisting, no means of altering their ukases. They are indeed robed masters. But "band of outlaws"? An outlaw is a person who coerces others without warrant in law. That is precisely what a majority of the present Supreme Court does. That is, given the opportunity, what the Supreme Court has always done.

Robert H. Bork, Our Judicial Oligarchy, 67 First Things 21, 24 (Nov. 1996) (emphasis added).

With all respect, Nikki, I don't see how you can call me a "law denier." I merely take the position that the irregular ukases of corrupt and incompetent judges are not law.

[Dr. Caligari]

what it has never done is address the question of whether the distinguishing feature of the jury trial -- that the jury has the power to decide matters of both fact and law -- can be extinguished without running afoul of the Seventh Amendment.

The Seventh Amendment itself quite clearly answers that question; it provides that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States..." Nothing in there about a jury's findings of law.

[Nikki]

Even if Smith had been admitted to the Bar, it wouldn't have lasted long.

His clear inability to comprehend how the system works (as opposed to his interpretation of how the FF's wanted it to work) would result in him receiving enough sanctions and disciplinary actions to have his license suspended and then revoked in short order.

[KSmith]

Ken Smith's arguments can all be condensed into this simple sentence: "You disagree with me; ergo, you are wrong."

Your argument can be condensed into this simple sentence: "The court disagrees with you; ergo, you are wrong."

Tell you what: If you yo-yos can find even a single court anywhere in the civilised[sic] world outside of Colorado where a judge is allowed to sit in judgment of his own case, cf., Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927) (violates 14Am), when other judges could hear it, get back to me.

[KSmith]

The link in the first message leads to a "library" of looney documents in Scribd. Apparently this collection is constantly being enlarged, even since the first message in this thread. After going through four or five very tedious pages of listed documents, I think the appeal being referenced is this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35428083/How- ... peal-Brief


It's 198 pages!! That sort of blows hell out of calling it a "brief".

I am not going to wade through it to find the paragraph where Kenneth Smith threatens to kill judges. But if you are a glutton for punishment at least you will have the right document.

You will have a hard time finding that paragraph ... mostly because it doesn't exist.

[bmielke]

Tell you what: If you yo-yos can find even a single court anywhere in the civilised[sic] world outside of Colorado where a judge is allowed to sit in judgment of his own case, cf., Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927) (violates 14Am), when other judges could hear it, get back to me.

Your wording confuses me, please explain what you are looking for and I will take up the challenge.

[KSmith]

what it has never done is address the question of whether the distinguishing feature of the jury trial -- that the jury has the power to decide matters of both fact and law -- can be extinguished without running afoul of the Seventh Amendment.

The Seventh Amendment itself quite clearly answers that question; it provides that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States..." Nothing in there about a jury's findings of law.

The civil jury is the check against the corrupt judge, the appellate court system is the check on the rogue jury, and the publication of decisions by the highest court of the land and doctrine of stare decisis are checks on the rogue appellate tribunal.

What happens when a verdict is overturned on appeal? It goes back to another civil jury, and the process starts all over again. The system would work if it operated as designed, but judges wrongfully usurped powers entrusted to the jury.

[webhick]

Even if Smith had been admitted to the Bar, it wouldn't have lasted long.

His clear inability to comprehend how the system works (as opposed to his interpretation of how the FF's wanted it to work) would result in him receiving enough sanctions and disciplinary actions to have his license suspended and then revoked in short order.

Christ, this installation is taking forever. It's making my brain spin and make funny noises. But here's what I'm going to do. You can all thank me later as this will be the biggest contribution to society that you will see in your lifetime. I'm also only paying cursory attention to the thread, since the install makes the scrolley jump too far in whatever direction I'm trying to move.

I'm going to get a medical degree. From America. I'm going to set up a medical practice. Before I open, I'm going to proudly declare that doctors have been misinterpreting the way the divine creator intended for our bodies to function and that the crap I learned in medical school was just some kind of suppressive regime. Then I open my doors. And remove a few organs without anesthesia. I mean, you don't need TWO of anything when you can function reasonably well on just one so stop being greedy. And you don't NEED anesthesia when I have the correct incantation to take the pain away. Just...hold...still.
I imagine that at some point the medical authorities will shut down my practice. So, I'll sue them to reinstate me. I have a right to practice medicine how the divine creator intended which happens to coincide with how I feel at any given moment. They probably won't reinstate my ability to play doctor - despite how awesome I am at it - so I'll try to claim that I'm disabled. Not sure which disability I'm going to go with. Mental? I mean, I did just take out a dude's lung while he was still screaming. Well, he only screamed for the first part and then he kind of stopped breathing altogether. Not my fault. Then I'll get pissed because they want me to pay for the mental evaluation.

My brand of crazy is a disability protected by the ADA, bitches. Now give me back my hacksaw! Sharpened tools are for pansies!

[KSmith]

For those of you who are unaware of who Ken Smith is: he's been flogging the horse of his denial of admission to the Colorado bar for years, back to the Usenet days of misc.legal. He will happily continue this conversation into the next millenium. He may have a point, or may not; my recollection was that among the reasons for that denial was his publication of an alteration of the infamous Hustler Jerry Falwell cartoon, with Rehnquist's face photoshopped over Falwell's.

Dan and I (and perhaps others here) both went 'round with him on misc.legal, not entirely unsympathetically, a decade or so ago. He's obviously still at it.

You misremember a lot, which is hardly surprising. I did not bring my case to misc.legal; it was the doing of the legendary Net-Kook, Theodore A. Kaldis. In case you are wondering, Kaldis' Christian brother-in-law allegedly threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff to her death http://pysih.com/2009/08/12/cameron-john-brown/; he has been held without bail for over seven years (two hung juries), and is expected to have to wait one more year for his third trial. And you should hear TeddiBeer whine about the corruption in our courts! (Karma is such a baitch! ) But you might remember this gripe:

[Smith] filed a complaint in federal district court setting forth twenty claims for relief for alleged violations of federal law and of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff sought declarations that the Colorado bar admission process and certain admissions rules were unconstitutional…

Smith v. Mullarkey, 67 F.App’x. 535 (10th Cir. Jun. 11, 2003), slip op. at 4 (emphasis added). As any competent judge should know, the italicized text was my non-refundable ticket to federal court. District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-83 (1983). As such, the Tenth Circuit wrote “designer law,” applicable to me and only to me, thereby depriving me of rights available to every other citizen.

And you have the temerity to tell me that I don't have a legitimate gripe....

[fortinbras]

I bothered looking up Ken Smith's legal "career". At least 16 court decisions in ten years. He graduated from the Univ. of Denver law school with a JD in 1995, and applied for the Colorado Bar. He evidently passed the regular screening process but the Bar Admissions committe, relying on its rules, did want him to have a psych evaluation because it had discovered that "he previously abused the legal system and exhibited a lack of candor."
Instead of submitting to a psych evaluation, Smith started a long series of lawsuits to circumvent the process.

He filed a federal suit against the Colorado Supreme Court's Chief Judge: Smith v. [Mary J.] Mullarkey, which failed in the federal district court, whereupon he appealed to the 10th Circuit, which noted that he was also claiming that requiring a psych exam was a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disability Act. The court dismissed, primarily on the general grounds that federal courts do not give orders to the state supreme courts. (10th Cir. June 11, 2003) 67 Fed.Appx 535. However, this did not stop his efforts to make a federal case out of it.

He made an effort through the state courts. Smith v. Mullarkey (Colo.Supm. Oct 15, 2005) 121 P.3d 890, which noted why the Admissions Committee wanted the psych evaluation and said that he could not circumvent the bar admission process by challenging the constitutionality of rules that were entirely constitutional, and also denied that his civil rights had been violated. The US Supreme Ct denied cert. (April 17, 2006) 547 US 1071, 126 S.Ct 1792, 164 L.Ed.2d 519.

He then went back to federal courts. Almost invariably the named defendants are judges, sometimes state, sometimes federal.

He tried again in federal court in Smith v. Bender (D.Colo July 11, 2008)(unpublished) which was tossed out again over the federalism issue. He then appealed and the district court's dismissal was upheld (10th Cir. Sept. 11, 2009) 350 Fed.Appx 190, cert.denied (April 19, 2010) _US_, 130 S.Ct 2097, 176 L.Ed.2d 756.

And again in Smith v. Krieger [Judge of the US District Ct for Colo.] (D.Colo. Aug. 3, 2009) 643 F.Supp.2d 1274, which again threw the case out on federalism issues, and noted that his pleadings were not well done. The court noted that the "liberal reading" that the courts are supposed to give amateur pleadings simply meant allowances for defects in formatting, legal terminology and English usage but did not oblige the court to make up for his lack of solid legal argument. You think that, having graduated from law school and all, having his stuff considered insufficient by the low standards used for handwritten prisoner filings, would have sent him a signal but he ignored it. The district court issued a further decision against him on Sept. 9, 2009 (unpublished) and he appealed, whereupon the appellate court noted his "lengthy, abusive filing history" and that he has "engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation" (lawyers admitted to the bar are sometimes suspended for such behavior). (10th Cir. July 27, 2010)(unpublished).

Another federal lawsuit, Smith v. Anderson [another judges of the district ct], was filed with the demand that all the federal judges in Colorado be required to recuse themselves. The judge who was handed this case noted that Smith hadn't even named him but simply wanted every Colorado federal judge from handling it; this request was denied because a judge has a duty to preside on a case absent some personal bias which can be articulated. (D.Colo. Nov 18, 2009)(unpublished). The next day another decision, rejecting Smith's demand that all the federal judges in Colorado "be removed from their positions"; the court noted that only Congress could remove a federal judge from his position and a lawsuit was not a substitute for impeachment. (D.Colo. Nov. 19, 2009)(unpublished). This was also appealed, the appeal bundled with the Anderson appeal and rejected on July 27, 2010.

Yet against with Smith v. Eid (D.Colo. May 4, 2010) which also went nowhere.

In Smith v. Arguello (D.Colo. May 4, 2010)(unpublished), Ken Smith complained that (1) his victims in all these federal lawsuits had dared to ask the court to penalize him (primarily with an order not to file any more federal lawsuits without prior judicial permission, possibly also by fines for frivolous pleading) and (2) he had been put on a watch list for the federal marshals guarding the federal courthouse. His win-loss record remained unblemished.

I have skipped a couple of procedural decisions in some of the aforementioned cases, also going against him.

Now, mind you, this has been going on for more than seven years! Rather than sit for a psych evaluation that would have last a couple of hours, Ken Smith has wasted seven years of his and other peoples' time. Law school, even at Harvard or Yale, takes only three years. In those seven years he could have gone into psychotherapy and been cured of whatever ails him. But no, he has to try to drill through the Rock of Gibraltar with the blunt end of a boiled carrot. And for his efforts he has had really ugly comments about him put by judges in the public record.

[Pottapaug1938]

Psychiatric problems would explain why someone who made it through law school is tirelessly engaging in mining court decisions and various legal sources for comforting quotes that fit in with his own beliefs, with a fervor worthy of Van Pelt, Harvey, Ed: Moron, and other legal scholars.

[grixit]

Once upon a time, i was a physics major. I did really well at it too-- at first. Then i hit a wall at about 1880, where James Clerk (pronounced clark) Maxwell and his equations of electromagnetism come in. I couldn't hack the calculus. So i changed majors and eventually got my degree in computer science.

So what about Ken Smith? Foiled in his first choice of profession, has he done anything else since, other than haunting the courts?

Also, Ken, the ADA says that a pro basketball team has to have access in their headquartes so that a person in a wheelchair has a chance to join the staff, it doesn't say that said person is entitled to play on the team. Of course there are wheelchair basketball leagues, perhaps you can start a moot court league for competitive argument among less than qualified law students. It would probably be very entertaining.