Re: The insolence of Office; Hoisting them on their own Petards

"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:

> Ken Smith wrote:
> > Jon Beaver wrote:
> >> Ken Smith wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> That is the issue, isn't it?  If a government official is acting within
> >>> the scope of his authority and discretion, he isn't committing
> >>> "misconduct," is he?
>
> So then, say, a bar examiner requiring a bar candidate to submit to a
> psychological examination as part of the evaluation process cannot be
> committing "misconduct".

  Why couldn't he be?  Because Ken won't suck Jesus' donkey-dick?

> >> Bad analysis.
>
> As usual for Ken.
>
> >> It begs the question.  If immunity were only for acts that are not
> >> "misconduct" what IS immunity?
>
> Lip service, to Ken.
>
> > No, I'm simply cutting through a lot of bullshit
>
> How can you be "cutting through" something which you produce in tandem
> dumptruck-sized loads?

  Translated, Ken refuses to suck Jesus' diseased donkey-dick, and
Teddi is so insecure in his faith -- such that it is, given that Teddi is a
self-confessed felon and fornicator -- that it infuriates him.

> > that wouldn't need to be stated when addressing competent attorneys.
>
> You wouldn't recognise a competent attorney if one were to bite you on the
> arse.

 Law school is more than enough to enable me to tell the difference
between a third-rate hack like our JonBoy and polished advocates
like Gerry Spence and Geoffrey Fieger.  Where did *you* go to law
school, Teddi?  Ripple U?

>  Isn't this rather a fatuous statement to be coming from one who
> challenges the competence of the Colorado Supreme Court, Federal District
> Court, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals?

  Why can't you be honest about what your complaint about me is really
all about -- that I refuse to suck your god's diseased donkey-dick?