JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Michael Schweitzer]

LOL you just directly contradicted earlier claims:

http://educationforu...21

Jumping to conclusions again, Colby. To this day I take emergency calls. I have had a busy retirement. And you are intruding into someone else's conversation. Unless spoken to, keep your mouth shut.

[Michael Schweitzer]

It's really becoming a nuisance to keep monitoring this forum for defamatory posts by Len Colby that attack my integrity as an attorney. A moderator can't control someone so insane he never stops. Either scour the world for the zoo he escaped from and ship him there, or invoke Rule iv and delete his membership.

[Michael Schweitzer]

Len Colby is continuing to harass me. Here's his current attack-of-the-day:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18521&st=165

[Len Colby]

Len Colby is continuing to harass me. Here's his current attack-of-the-day:

http://educationforu...ic=18521&st=165

If you had said the following when I first asked about this:

“I had a practical reason for switching my status from "active" to "inactive." Active status is only required when an attorney represents clients, and it carries the baggage of complying with California's burdensome "MCLE" (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) requirements. I represented clients from 1982 to 1996. After that, I only worked for other attorneys as a research and briefing specialist, so I changed my status to inactive to escape the MCLE burden. I retired in 2006 and, to preserve my license, remain an inactive-status member of the State Bar.”

The discussion would have ended there, that is a reasonable explanation which fits the public record but rather you evaded the question and then gave a contradictory answer, i.e. that "I was promptly restored to active status and remained so until I retired and switched to inactive status.” So you have no one to blame but yourself.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Len Colby

[Michael Schweitzer]

Tom, you still have not responded. You posted the words "not eligible to practice," which applied for only five months in 1996, a fact you omitted. What government agency do you work for?

[Len Colby]

Tom, you still have not responded. You posted the words "not eligible to practice," which applied for only five months in 1996, a fact you omitted. What government agency do you work for?

LOL Schweitzer’s so far off his rocker he thinks Tom’s a CIA disinfo agent!! Yeah that makes a lot of sense to me. He’s worked as a sleeper till now, only taking action to try to discredit Schweitzer* due his ground breaking rock solid research which threatens to break the JFK case wide open.

Funny that he keeps contradicting himself but wants to be taken seriously. On this thread he previous said his suspension “lasted one month” then on other thread he told Dawn his suspension had lasted only one day:

I was briefly suspended in 1996 because

the California Bar received my annual fee

one day late

and imposed a sanction they didn't notify me about for a couple months. By the time I paid the sanction, I had been suspended.

They lifted the suspension

when they received my payment

.

This is the 3^rd aspect related to this issue he has given more than one version of:

1) a] When he 1^st joined the forum in Dec. 2011 he said “I RECENTLY retired as an attorney” b] later he said “I retired in 2006” c] then he indicated he isn’t really retired.

2) a] he 1^st insisted on at least two occasions that after his suspension “I was promptly restored to active status and REMAINED SO UNTIL I RETIRED and switched to inactive status” b] then he claimed “I…switch[ed] my status from "active" to "inactive."…[in] 1996… I retired in 2006”

3) And now the suspension lasted a] “for one month” b] one day, or was it c] “for only five months”?

* PS - I remembered just after submitting this post that Tom also took actions against Rago, so he must have been on to something as well!

EDIT - PS

Edited November 7, 2012 by Len Colby

[Michael Schweitzer]

Edited November 7, 2012 by Michael Schweitzer

[Len Colby]

LOL are you really 60? Immature posts like yours reflect poorly on the poster not the 'target'. But since you have no way to refute me you lash out.

[Dawn Meredith]

I am going to try to post a sentence here using a different browser to see if that eliminates the porblem I am having of multiple posts using google chrome.

Apopogies if it does not...

Dawn

[Guest Tom Scully]

Evan hid the topic containing your recent posts. You are not mentioned in the comments Evan posted. Lee, you will have to ask Evan about it. I can retrieve your posts in the thread if you need something from them.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Merged Robert Morrow's new thread with existing thread already well stocked with the almost identical details already posted by Robert Morrow.

Merged Bernice Moore's new thread, titled "Harvey and Lee Oswald" with existing thread on the same topic. In addition to the thread I merged Bernice's new thread with, there are two other threads that are titled, "Harvey and Lee." I recognize that Bernice was alerting everyone to an overlooked resource. I think in the longer run it will be easier to locate information on specific topics if there are less threads featuring the same subjects.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Bernice Moore]

Thank you Tom for taking the time to find and merge the two threads, to tell you the truth, it never entered my mind..duh and it certainly should have...take care..best b

[Len Colby]

A thread about George DeM. seems to have disappeared without explianation

[Evan Burton]

Sorry - that was me. I've been cleaning the forum and found out I was deleteing threads! Luckily, they can be restored and I'm doing that now.

[Stephen Roy]

Moderators:

I joined this forum some years ago because I saw it as a place for civil discussion and debate, where good information can be posted in an atmosphere of academic fairness, where mods step-in only when needed and where members are free to express opinions without fear of personal attacks. Sure, there have been knock-down drag-out fights (and I've been part of a couple), but the mods somehow always seemed to be able to pull us back on track.

I've been very disappointed with the atmosphere here lately. Some members have been attacking other members unfairly and obsessively. Some make personal attacks couched as sarcasm. Some feel that other members don't deserve the protections of the rules. A few posters are just plain mean. I find myself less and less interested in reading or posting here, and it needn't be that way. Is there anything the mods can do to improve the situation, to reduce the meanness and make it a more pleasant place for discussion?