On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:05:19 GMT, " krp"
verizon.net> wrote:
[snips for brevity]
>>
>>>> Which of the various issues do you claim to be an expert in?
>
>>> They are listed on my website Larry. If you REALLY want to know and arn't
>>> plaing one of your usual children's games on Usenet.
>
>> I went to your web site, as well as others that pertain to you and your
>> business, and even if I was in the market for a trial consultant, I
>> wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole.
>
> Oh goodie - the MORON went to the David Moore website and he believes
>it.
Except for opinions, which are clearly labeled as such,
everything is documented.
>Like I said I PRAY for prosecutors like you. Tell me something, Larry,
>when you do a trial, do you often use ANONYMOUS witnesses? Untested
>evidence???????????
I doubt he does, though only Larry can say with certainty.
>
> Let me give you a couple HINTS Mr. Bullshit artist. There is a REASON
>that Mr. Moore CANNOT use a legitimate ISP to post his venom.
Are you claiming he's not using an ISP to access the Internet?
If so, how does he do it? Does he fold his arms and blink?
>There is also
>a reason that the website you refer to MUST be hosted offshore.
It's cheaper.
>It was
>booted from more than a dozen ISP's, even one in Ghana. But I think that
>would be JUST the type of evidence YOU would put on before a court.
You've frequently claimed David's site has been moved all over
the world, yet offer NOTHING but your word.
[...]
>
>>>>> No smart assed answer Larry?
>
>>>> Of course not, you didn't provide nearly enough information to know if
>>>> being aggressive would have been in the client's interest or not.
>
>>> Tell me Larry in all your VAST wisdom, how can the defense win with
>>> NO
>>> CASE???????????????
>
>> The defense needs a case?
>
> Yes Larry I know that's strange to you, but YES. The defense doesn't
>need to PUT ON a case, however, not having one is a sure fire way for a
>client to go BYE BYE...
>
They need a strategy, but not a case as you clearly mean the
term.
>> Why would I ever hire a trial consultant that doesn't understand which
>> party has the burden of proof?
>
> Larry I gave you a pass on the antics in ATC. You got your lunch ate
>there, looking for seconds?
You mean where he consistently asked you to post the MID for just
ONE of the posts so that he could answer if he did or did not author
it?
>Oh I know all about the "burden of proof"
>bullshit Larry, you can fool others with that crap. Your problem is that you
>face UNPREPARED defense lawyers every day and you THINK that your victories
>makes you a GREAT GREAT GREAT lawyer. Burdens? Cut the shit Larry you have
>entire police departments extensive forensic labs and a laundy list of
>PAYROLLED expert witnesses.
There is nothing in any law book of which I am aware that
prevents the defense from hiring the services of a forensic lad and/or
expert witnesses.
>And STILLL you whine like a baby. Yes Larry ON
>PAPER and on LAW & ORDER the prosecution has the burden of proof. But Larry,
>that's TV not a real courtroom. Go bullshit idiots like Kunt Wills.
If I, being one who consistently outwits you, am an idiot, how
low do you view yourself?
>
>>>> There was recently a trial over a horrible torture-rape in New York
>>>> City. The victim was on the stand for hours describing the ordeal that
>>>> almost left her dead. The defense lawyer declined to cross-examine
>>>> her,
>>>> and instead vigorously cross-examined the forensic witnesses who
>>>> collected the evidence and analyzed the DNA that tied the defendant to
>>>> the crime.
>
>>> Depending on the nature of her testimony that could be a wise
>>> decision.
>
>> But what if the defendant leaned over and criticized his attorney for
>> not being aggressive enough? How do I know this isn't the case that
>> your anecdote came from?
>
> Then I would say he is a BAD lawyer for not having discussed it with his
>client beforehand. Or just an ARROGANT PRICK like some prosecutors I have
>encountered, it seems to come with some JD's.
Some probably are.
>
>>> Juries don't like beating up a victim. Unless you can really show she's
>>> lying, it is probably wise not to go there. HOWEVER, Larry, a defense
>>> lawyer
>>> should discuss trial startegy with his client BEFORE trial.
>
>> And the client might not like it and be very upset over that strategy,
>> which is why I pointed out that your anecdote was woefully inadequate in
>> the facts for me to not have a "smart assed answer."
>
> Look Larry - a GOOD lawyer who has PREPARED his case - has gone over
>that with his client. The problem YOU have is that 90%% of your cases are
>handled by Public Pretenders.
Please cite where 90%% of Larry's cases are handled by PDs.
>A GOOD defense lawyer has met extensively
>with his client to prepare him for the day's festivities as well as the
>CASE, and I don't care what STUPID comments you make that the defense
>doesn't NEED a case, that only proves how limited YOUR knowledge is.
The defense doesn't need a case. Anyone with elementary legal
knowledge would understand this.
>
>>>> Was he not being aggressive enough with the victim or in his defense of
>>>> his client? Would a confrontational cross examination have just
>>>> backfired and turned the jury against the defendant even more?
>
>>> It could have. Did he discuss it with his cleint first?
>
>> How the heck would I know?
>
> That's your problem Larry - you SHOOT before you know what the target
>is.
How is Larry's not knowing what was or was not discussed in your
hypothetical shooting before or after knowing what the target is?
>
>> Why would I ever hire a trial consultant that doesn't understand the
>> attorney-client privilege?
>
> Larry the answer is OBVIOUS.
You don't understand. It is VERY obvious.
For those unaware, there was at least one time Kenny-Bob tried to
silence an unhappy client by threatening to violate confidentiality.
It back fired since Kenny-Bob only knew what was already in the public
records.
<< Thomas, Wilbur Streett is suggesting that you will start posting
attacks on me in alt.dads-rights. If you do so, your right to
confidentiality will be blown. Do you really want to do that? >>
Ken:
I have better things to do in life than to "attack" people. You sound
like my paranoid ex-wife. And by the way, in your correspondence to me
above, the "your right to confidentiality will be blown" statement
implies an attack in and of itself. A cursory look at this statement
alone shows that it is made as a "threat" to silence me. I have
nothing to hide. Whatever was documented as part of the court record
has become public record and thus anyone can get a copy...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.dads-rights.unmoderated/msg/d9b43cba676e7b18
[...]
>
>>> Because the decision to hire the TC came from Garcetti (HER BOSS).
>>> And
>>> she's an arrogant bitch. Which is the key factor that turned off the
>>> jury.
>>> She neeeded to town down her venom. Every time she was told to back off
>>> she
>>> turned it up a couple notches. Even Garcetti told her to calm down. She
>>> just
>>> got pissed, her ego wouldn't let her listen. Like MANY lawyers.
>
>> Can you document any of these claims?
>
> Do you EVER fukkkkin READ Larry? This is NIFONG DEJA-VU all over again.
>Do you EVER READ on the things you leap into? EVER Larry? Will you START
>with Marcia Clark's book "WITHOUT A DOUBT?" Christ you are DENSE boy!
>Hasn't your crap on the Duke case washed off your face YET? Oh Larry DON'T
>GO THERE!!
So you can't document any of the claims. Little wonder since you
made it up.
[...]
>
>> Why would I ever hire a trial consultant who resorts to name calling
>> when someone asks him how he knows a piece of information, and doesn't
>> even spell the insults correctly?
>
> Oh Larry I only do it with clowns like you and Kent Wills and a few
>selected others who EARN the titles.
>
In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%%.
>>>>> WHO WON?????
>
>>>> Are you really claiming that OJ's trial consultant was the reason he
>>>> was
>>>> acquitted, and the lawyers don't get any of the credit whatsoever?
>
>>> Did I say that jackass? They get plenty of credit, they listedn to Jo
>>> Ellan.
>
>> So you're willing to give the lawyers credit for being good puppets who
>> carried out the trial consultant's plans. How magnanimous of you.
>
> Larry - WHO WON???? Puppets? Maybe you MISS the whole "TEAM" deal. I
>know it is WAY abopve your pay grade. You know Larry, you remind me of Night
>Court's prosecutor Dan Fielding when he got demoted to animal court.
Rather than debate the merits of the points raised, you're once
again reduced to ad homs.
[...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you search out and READ Justice Berger's address to the
>>>>> American Bar association back in the 70's you might want to dial back
>>>>> your
>>>>> own arrogance a notch or two.
>>>
>>>> I'm not arrogant, I'm confident in my abilities. And the results I
>>>> achieve show my confidence is well-founded.
>
>>> Oh how I wish we had a case against an arrogant prick like you.
>
>> Come and get one. I practice in New York City. Come up here and see if
>> anyone's desperate enough to hire you. You'd be busy telling the
>> defendant he has a burden in the case, blab to the world all of the
>> discussions you, the attorney, and his client had, and then tell the
>> attorney to do everything you tell him to without question like a good
>> puppet, and call him mis-spelled insults if he didn't.
>
> Yes Larry well I don't get to PICK where my next client will be. Since I
>don't do PRO BONO and Public Pretenders can't pay me, it may take a while,
>but I still PRAY for prosecutors like you.
>
You have no clients. This is why you're doing customer service
via the phone.
Yes, you've been outted.
"3 year old GIRL Kunt."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team,
commenting on a three-year-old girl's vagina.
Message-ID: <78RZj.7110$3j.6866@trnddc05>
